August 29, 2006 at 16:03:15
Porn and the CIA (Your tax dollars at work)
by Mickey Z.
http://www.opednews.com
With a defense budget-hold on, let's dispense with the bullshit-with a "war" budget of over $350 billion dollars per year, did you ever wonder if all the legal tender being funneled away from social programs is making anyone except defense contractors feel safe? And just who are the clever folks trusted with the responsibility of deciding how that monumental sum is spent?
One doesn't exactly have to waste hours scouring accurate expenditures to get the feeling that U.S. decision makers fall neatly into the Austin Powers camp of spying. It might be comforting to convince ourselves that the CIA is efficient and necessary, but here's a fine example of American "intelligence" to help snap us out of our denial...and it involves one-time Indonesian president, Sukarno.
In 1948, George Kennan, head of the State Department post-war planning staff, called the resource-rich nation of Indonesia "the most crucial issue of the moment in our struggle with the Kremlin." At that time, Sukarno had been president of the world's largest Muslim nation for three years. "A star among Third World leaders, active in the nonaligned, anti-imperialist movement," author Mark Zepezauer says Sukarno had "long been a thorn in the side of the US. Worse yet, the Communist party (PKI) was part of his governing coalition."
"The PKI, nominally backed by Sukarno, was a legal and formidable organization and was the third largest Communist Party in the world," writes former CIA agent Ralph McGehee. Inevitably, Sukarno garnered the attention of that inventive gang of sleuths at the Central Intelligence Agency and covert U.S. support for his rivals in the Indonesian military hit full stride by 1957. That's just about the time that the CIA hatched a scheme to bring down the popular Indonesian leader-a scheme that would make Inspector Clousseau smile.
The basic idea was to portray the hated Sukarno in a pornographic film: getting frisky with his supposed Soviet spy mistress. (Note to younger readers: Yes, there was actually a time when appearing in a sex video was not considered a good career move.) "Our special Sukarno committee was formed to accomplish ... the production of a film, or at least some still photos, showing Sukarno and his Russian girlfriend engaged in his favorite activity," CIA operative Joseph Burkholder Smith writes in "Portrait of a Cold Warrior."
American taxpayers dollars went a long way in funding the CIA's neat idea (as Ollie North might have called it) of developing a full-face mask of Sukarno and then hiring an American porn actor in Los Angeles to wear it. History did not record who would handle the role of sexy Soviet mistress but it's not hard to imagine her looking something like Natasha in "Rocky and Bullwinkle."
"The resulting movie and some still photographs from it were passed around influential circles in Indonesia," explains Barry Hillenbrand in Time magazine. "But the CIA miscalculated. Rather than express surprise and outrage at their leader's apparent peccadilloes, Indonesians shrugged."
Shortly after that, the CIA went back to what it does best: covert military support and destabilization resulting in a bloody coup to install a dictator more amenable to America's desires.
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
http://www.mickeyz.net
Mickey Z. is the author of five books, most recently "50 American Revolutions You're Not Supposed to Know: Reclaiming American Patriotism" (Disinformation Books). He can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
NYT to Freedom of the Press: "Drop Dead!"
NYT to Freedom of the Press: "Drop Dead!"
Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Tuesday, 29 August 2006
Readers in the UK perusing the New York Times yesterday ran across an intriguing headline about new facts emerging in the "bomb terror plot" that recently shook the island kingdom. I say, what does America's "paper of record" have to say about this vital subject. Let's click the headline and…let's click again and…Where's the story? What's this message?
This Article Is Unavailable
On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.
Yes, that's right: British users of the great universal information system of the age are being blocked from reading a story in America's most venerable and venerated newspaper – blocked not by government censorship, but by the newspaper itself. Who needs the KGB or the Stasi if the media watchdogs of a "free country" willingly snap the muzzle on themselves and lie down whimpering, thumping their tails at the bootheels of power?
And it wasn't just this newfangled internet gizmo that was blocked: "the shipment of yesterday's paper to London was stopped. The story was also omitted from the International Herald Tribune, the NYT's European sister paper," as the Guardian reports.
What accounts for this extraordinary situation? The Guardian explains:
…It is believed to be the first time that the paper has stopped British readers accessing one of its articles because of worries about UK law. Earlier this month, the home secretary, John Reid, and the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, issued a joint warning to the media to avoid coverage of the current terror investigations which might prejudice future trials. The statement threatened possible contempt proceedings against publications that failed to show appropriate "restraint".
That would be the same John Reid – the former Stalinist enforcer turned rightwing Blairite bullyboy in Labour's "four legs good, two legs better" regime – who immediately after the alleged bomb plot was uncovered took to the airwaves and spoke in no uncertain terms of the predetermined guilt of the terrorist suspects. It was Reid himself who prejudiced the case, in the most spectacular fashion. Reid's little confab with Lord Goldsmith – the legal eagle who cravenly reversed himself on the obvious illegality of the Iraq War after the White House and Blair leaned on him – had nothing to do with "protecting the rights" of the bomb plot suspects. (Blair after all has called for "rethinking" Britain's legal commitment to Europe's Human Rights Law, because of the "restrictions" this puts on his regime's maniacal drive to overturn the Magna Carta.)
No, what Reid (and the ever-acquiescent attorney general) want to do is intimidate the press from probing too deeply into the terror plot, from which the Blair government has tried to make so much political hay. (Without success, by the way; Blair, like Bush, is in free fall at the polls. His cynical mendacity and bloodthirsty lockstep with Bush have produced a true political miracle in Britain: the resurrection of the hated Tory Party, which had almost disappeared as a political force since 1997. Now the Conservatives are soaring in the polls, leading Labour by nine points.)
And so the New York Times is aiding and abetting this attempt to throttle the free flow of information in a supposed democracy. What is truly sinister about this cowardice is the precedent it sets for the paper's future policy. Hearken to the strange black-and-white rationale of this self-censorship delivered by George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of the New York Times Company:
"…We're dealing with a country [the UK] that, while it doesn't have a First Amendment, it does have a free press, and it's our position that we ought to respect that country's laws."
Dig the pretzel logic: because the UK has a "free press," we should bend our knee to its laws that, er, restrict the freedom of the press. "We ought to respect that country's laws."
So when will the New York Times start blocking Chinese readers from reading stories that might violate "that country's laws"? (Those Chinese readers who have somehow circumvented the Reidish restrictions that Beijing's enforcers have clamped on the internet, that is.) Hey, the United States has a "free press," too; should the New York Times stop publishing stories using leaks of classified information that might violate "that country's laws?" If you're going to bow down to John Reid, why not to George Bush too while you're at it? Are Britain's press-restriction laws somehow more honorable than the shackles Bush, Al Gonzales and the whole sick crew are trying to put on America's media?
But you can be sure the next time the New York Times is under fire from the White House and the rightwing echo chamber for publishing classified material from a whistleblower (or from some savvy player in the Regime's own internecine warfare), the paper will send out the call: "Stand up for us, friends! The freedom of the press is being attacked! Help us defend our sacred liberties! Help us speak truth to power and cast a torchlight on the darkness of government skullduggery!"
I guess it's OK to kill the freedom of the press – as long as it's suicide, not a whack job from outside. We can campaign for "net neutrality" and maintaining the unrestricted, gloriously anarchic freedom of the internet from government encroachment until we're blue in the face; we can pour our hearts and souls into it, lobby Congress, write letters, lead protest marches and what all – but it's not going to mean a damn thing if the media itself is going to fall down and grovel in a paroxysm of trembly "respect" whenever they're confronted with the onerous press restrictions of the various principalities and powers of the world.
This is a major defeat for press freedom – a craven surrender offered up meekly without even firing a shot.
Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Tuesday, 29 August 2006
Readers in the UK perusing the New York Times yesterday ran across an intriguing headline about new facts emerging in the "bomb terror plot" that recently shook the island kingdom. I say, what does America's "paper of record" have to say about this vital subject. Let's click the headline and…let's click again and…Where's the story? What's this message?
This Article Is Unavailable
On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.
Yes, that's right: British users of the great universal information system of the age are being blocked from reading a story in America's most venerable and venerated newspaper – blocked not by government censorship, but by the newspaper itself. Who needs the KGB or the Stasi if the media watchdogs of a "free country" willingly snap the muzzle on themselves and lie down whimpering, thumping their tails at the bootheels of power?
And it wasn't just this newfangled internet gizmo that was blocked: "the shipment of yesterday's paper to London was stopped. The story was also omitted from the International Herald Tribune, the NYT's European sister paper," as the Guardian reports.
What accounts for this extraordinary situation? The Guardian explains:
…It is believed to be the first time that the paper has stopped British readers accessing one of its articles because of worries about UK law. Earlier this month, the home secretary, John Reid, and the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, issued a joint warning to the media to avoid coverage of the current terror investigations which might prejudice future trials. The statement threatened possible contempt proceedings against publications that failed to show appropriate "restraint".
That would be the same John Reid – the former Stalinist enforcer turned rightwing Blairite bullyboy in Labour's "four legs good, two legs better" regime – who immediately after the alleged bomb plot was uncovered took to the airwaves and spoke in no uncertain terms of the predetermined guilt of the terrorist suspects. It was Reid himself who prejudiced the case, in the most spectacular fashion. Reid's little confab with Lord Goldsmith – the legal eagle who cravenly reversed himself on the obvious illegality of the Iraq War after the White House and Blair leaned on him – had nothing to do with "protecting the rights" of the bomb plot suspects. (Blair after all has called for "rethinking" Britain's legal commitment to Europe's Human Rights Law, because of the "restrictions" this puts on his regime's maniacal drive to overturn the Magna Carta.)
No, what Reid (and the ever-acquiescent attorney general) want to do is intimidate the press from probing too deeply into the terror plot, from which the Blair government has tried to make so much political hay. (Without success, by the way; Blair, like Bush, is in free fall at the polls. His cynical mendacity and bloodthirsty lockstep with Bush have produced a true political miracle in Britain: the resurrection of the hated Tory Party, which had almost disappeared as a political force since 1997. Now the Conservatives are soaring in the polls, leading Labour by nine points.)
And so the New York Times is aiding and abetting this attempt to throttle the free flow of information in a supposed democracy. What is truly sinister about this cowardice is the precedent it sets for the paper's future policy. Hearken to the strange black-and-white rationale of this self-censorship delivered by George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of the New York Times Company:
"…We're dealing with a country [the UK] that, while it doesn't have a First Amendment, it does have a free press, and it's our position that we ought to respect that country's laws."
Dig the pretzel logic: because the UK has a "free press," we should bend our knee to its laws that, er, restrict the freedom of the press. "We ought to respect that country's laws."
So when will the New York Times start blocking Chinese readers from reading stories that might violate "that country's laws"? (Those Chinese readers who have somehow circumvented the Reidish restrictions that Beijing's enforcers have clamped on the internet, that is.) Hey, the United States has a "free press," too; should the New York Times stop publishing stories using leaks of classified information that might violate "that country's laws?" If you're going to bow down to John Reid, why not to George Bush too while you're at it? Are Britain's press-restriction laws somehow more honorable than the shackles Bush, Al Gonzales and the whole sick crew are trying to put on America's media?
But you can be sure the next time the New York Times is under fire from the White House and the rightwing echo chamber for publishing classified material from a whistleblower (or from some savvy player in the Regime's own internecine warfare), the paper will send out the call: "Stand up for us, friends! The freedom of the press is being attacked! Help us defend our sacred liberties! Help us speak truth to power and cast a torchlight on the darkness of government skullduggery!"
I guess it's OK to kill the freedom of the press – as long as it's suicide, not a whack job from outside. We can campaign for "net neutrality" and maintaining the unrestricted, gloriously anarchic freedom of the internet from government encroachment until we're blue in the face; we can pour our hearts and souls into it, lobby Congress, write letters, lead protest marches and what all – but it's not going to mean a damn thing if the media itself is going to fall down and grovel in a paroxysm of trembly "respect" whenever they're confronted with the onerous press restrictions of the various principalities and powers of the world.
This is a major defeat for press freedom – a craven surrender offered up meekly without even firing a shot.
Lebanon, Lebanon
Lebanon, Lebanon
John Le Carré
29 - 8 - 2006
The attacks on Lebanon's infrastructure and civilians will rebound on Israel for years to come, says John Le Carré.
So answer me this one, please. If you kill a hundred innocent civilians and one terrorist, are you winning or losing the war on terror? "Ah", you may reply, "but that one terrorist could kill two hundred people, a thousand, more!" But then comes another question: if, by killing a hundred innocent people, you are creating five new terrorists in the future, and a popular base clamouring to give them aid and comfort, have you achieved a net gain for future generations of your countrymen, or created the enemy you deserve?
Also by John Le Carré in openDemocracy:
"A predatory and dishonest war"
(January 2003)
This was the opening contribution of a symposium among writers, artists and civic leaders responding to the build-up to the war in Iraq that was to be launched in March 2003:
"The American over-reaction is beyond everything Osama could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. But this war was planned long before Osama struck, and it is Osama who made it possible. Without him, the Bush junta would have been mired in Enron, electoral scandal and taxation sleaze. Thanks to Osama, Americans are instead being daily misled by their leaders and by their compliant corporate media."
On 12 July 2006 the Israeli chief-of-staff granted us an insight into the subtleties of his nation's military thinking. The military operations being planned for the Lebanon, he told us, would "turn back the clock by twenty years". Well, I was there twenty years ago, and it wasn't a pretty picture. Since then, the lieutenant-general has been as good as his word. I am writing this just twenty-eight days after Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, a common enough military practice not unknown to the Israelis themselves.
In that time, 932 Lebanese have been killed and more than 3,000 wounded. 913,000 have become refugees. Israel's dead number ninety-four, with 867 wounded. In the first week of this conflict, Hizbollah fired some ninety rockets a day into Israel. Last week – despite 8,700 unopposed bombing sorties flown by the Israeli air force, resulting in the crippling of Beirut's international airport, and the destruction of power-plants, fuel-dumps, fishing-fleets, 147 bridges and seventy-two roads – Hizbollah upped its daily average of rockets to 169. And those two Israeli prisoners who were the purported cause of all the fuss have still not come home.
So yes. Exactly as we were warned, Israel has indeed done to the Lebanon what it did to it twenty years ago: laid waste its infrastructure and visited collective punishment on a delicate, multicultural, resilient democracy that was struggling to reconcile its sectarian differences and live in profitable harmony with its neighbours.
Until four weeks ago, Lebanon was being heralded by the United States as a model of what other middle-eastern countries might become. Hizbollah, it was widely and perhaps optimistically believed by the international community, was loosening its ties with Syria and Iran and on the way to becoming a political rather than a purely military force, yet today this very force is the toast of all Arabia, Israel's reputation for military supremacy is in tatters and its cherished deterrent image no longer deters. And the people of Lebanon have become the latest victims of a global catastrophe that is the work of deluded zealots and has no end in sight.
This piece was written in support of Lebanon, Lebanon, to be published by Saqi on 28 September 2006; all proceeds will go to children's charities working in Lebanon
© David Cornwell, 2006
John Le Carré
29 - 8 - 2006
The attacks on Lebanon's infrastructure and civilians will rebound on Israel for years to come, says John Le Carré.
So answer me this one, please. If you kill a hundred innocent civilians and one terrorist, are you winning or losing the war on terror? "Ah", you may reply, "but that one terrorist could kill two hundred people, a thousand, more!" But then comes another question: if, by killing a hundred innocent people, you are creating five new terrorists in the future, and a popular base clamouring to give them aid and comfort, have you achieved a net gain for future generations of your countrymen, or created the enemy you deserve?
Also by John Le Carré in openDemocracy:
"A predatory and dishonest war"
(January 2003)
This was the opening contribution of a symposium among writers, artists and civic leaders responding to the build-up to the war in Iraq that was to be launched in March 2003:
"The American over-reaction is beyond everything Osama could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. But this war was planned long before Osama struck, and it is Osama who made it possible. Without him, the Bush junta would have been mired in Enron, electoral scandal and taxation sleaze. Thanks to Osama, Americans are instead being daily misled by their leaders and by their compliant corporate media."
On 12 July 2006 the Israeli chief-of-staff granted us an insight into the subtleties of his nation's military thinking. The military operations being planned for the Lebanon, he told us, would "turn back the clock by twenty years". Well, I was there twenty years ago, and it wasn't a pretty picture. Since then, the lieutenant-general has been as good as his word. I am writing this just twenty-eight days after Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, a common enough military practice not unknown to the Israelis themselves.
In that time, 932 Lebanese have been killed and more than 3,000 wounded. 913,000 have become refugees. Israel's dead number ninety-four, with 867 wounded. In the first week of this conflict, Hizbollah fired some ninety rockets a day into Israel. Last week – despite 8,700 unopposed bombing sorties flown by the Israeli air force, resulting in the crippling of Beirut's international airport, and the destruction of power-plants, fuel-dumps, fishing-fleets, 147 bridges and seventy-two roads – Hizbollah upped its daily average of rockets to 169. And those two Israeli prisoners who were the purported cause of all the fuss have still not come home.
So yes. Exactly as we were warned, Israel has indeed done to the Lebanon what it did to it twenty years ago: laid waste its infrastructure and visited collective punishment on a delicate, multicultural, resilient democracy that was struggling to reconcile its sectarian differences and live in profitable harmony with its neighbours.
Until four weeks ago, Lebanon was being heralded by the United States as a model of what other middle-eastern countries might become. Hizbollah, it was widely and perhaps optimistically believed by the international community, was loosening its ties with Syria and Iran and on the way to becoming a political rather than a purely military force, yet today this very force is the toast of all Arabia, Israel's reputation for military supremacy is in tatters and its cherished deterrent image no longer deters. And the people of Lebanon have become the latest victims of a global catastrophe that is the work of deluded zealots and has no end in sight.
This piece was written in support of Lebanon, Lebanon, to be published by Saqi on 28 September 2006; all proceeds will go to children's charities working in Lebanon
© David Cornwell, 2006
Hamas, Hizbullah Face Their Greatest Challenges
Hamas and Hizbullah are two resistance movements on different paths. But both must effectively transition from armed resistance to governance. How successfully they do this will significantly affect the Arab region in the months ahead.
-------------------
Advisory Release: 29 August 2006
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, 1.336.686.9002, rights@agenceglobal.com
-------------------
Hamas, Hizbullah Face Their Greatest Challenges
by Rami G. Khouri
BEIRUT -- The Arab world's two leading self-styled "Islamic resistance movements" -- Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine -- seem to be moving in different directions, but there are lessons to be learned from both. The main one is that armed resistance is primarily a means for these groups. Their ultimate goal is a national order that reflects their society's valid concerns on political legitimacy, sovereignty, ideology and social values. Above all, their success reflects their ability to respond to the real needs of their constituents, rather than to promote any sort of ideal Islamic society or espouse revolutionary rhetoric and wage perpetual war.
As Hizbullah holds its own in Lebanon and the region, it also finds itself preoccupied with the challenges of shifting its center of gravity -- or at least its international image -- from guns to governance. After achieving the two striking feats of driving the Israeli army out of south Lebanon in 2000 and fighting it to a draw in 2006, it has no room left for military endeavors, and nothing more to prove on the battlefield.
It asserted itself in recent years by defying five parties: a weak Lebanese central government, other Lebanese political groups, Israel, the United States, and the dominant regimes in the Arab world. In return, these forces have now physically and politically hemmed it in: The Israeli army will destroy all Lebanon after the next provocation, the Lebanese government has moved 15,000 soldiers to the south, the UN Security Council dispatched another 15,000 international peace-keepers, and Lebanese and Arab political leaders call on Hizbullah to engage and integrate fully in the national governance and security system.
History suggests that fighting resistance wars to liberate one's occupied land is much more straightforward than making a subsequent transition to political responsibility. Hizbullah's most important test is just starting: It must erase the haze of its own inscrutability, remove the ambiguity of its relations with Iran and Syria, and slay the demons of mistrust that plague its relations with many key players, especially in Lebanon. It can do this and retain its integrity and impact, but only if it applies the same serious operating principles to the political realm that it has applied in recent years militarily, socially and in terms of its sheer focus, courage and efficiency.
The parallel lessons from Palestine are instructive and sobering. The Palestinian national resistance movement against Zionism and Western powers since the 1930s has passed through erratic stages of success and failure. The Fateh-dominated PLO made some major political achievements regionally and globally in the 1970s and 80s, only to sink into a sad cycle of complacency, corruption and incompetence after 1990. This ultimately led to its own marginalization, and the political and physical destruction of many aspects of Palestinian society.
Three key responses to this institutional mediocrity and political failure were the rise of Hamas and smaller Islamist groups, the waging of two grassroots and largely spontaneous popular intifadas against Israeli occupation, and the fragmentation of society into local political-military wards, militias and gangs. Hamas' success in resisting Israel militarily ultimately helped drive Israel out of Gaza; it achieved parallel political success in winning local and national elections in 2005-2006.
Its overall trajectory, however, has been more difficult than Hizbullah's. This is mainly because it has been fought simultaneously by a brutal Israeli military and political assault, Fateh and other Arab governments that fear its ilk, and the United States and Europe who have sanctioned and tried to break it. Yet it has also performed poorly in many cases, unable to build on the credibility and legitimacy that it had achieved since its founding less than two decades ago.
A respected member of Hamas in Gaza has now publicly admonished his fellow ruling Islamists and other Palestinians for their failures, charging that, "Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs," and since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza a year ago, "life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden."
These sentiments were published in an article Sunday by Ghazi Hamad, a former Hamas newspaper editor and the spokesman for the current Hamas government. He urged Palestinians to examine their own performance and not blame Israel for all their problems and failures, though he also seemed to place most of the blame on assorted Fateh-linked armed groups in Gaza. His most important point was his insistence on "self-criticism and self-evaluation," instead of the habit of "blaming our mistakes on others."
Hamas has been through tough moments before, including repeated assassinations of its leaders, mass deportations and jailings of its members, and the current political and economic boycott of Israel, the United States and Europe. In light of the lessons of Hizbullah's performance in Lebanon, Hamas must now adjust quickly or risk the same doomed, but self-inflicted, fate as Fateh and the PLO.
As Ghazi Hamad aptly challenged it and Palestinian society to do, it needs to examine its own ways in order to achieve success by being more accountable to its constituents, rather than faithful to fiery or emotional slogans. The performance of Hizbullah and Hamas in the months ahead are worth monitoring, for they will impact greatly on political trends throughout the Arab world.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, and editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star.
Copyright ©2006 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
----------------
Released: 29 August 2006
Word Count: 867
-------------------
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757
Agence Global
www.agenceglobal.com
1.212.731.0757 (main)
1.336.286.6606 (billing)
1.336.686.9002 (rights & permissions)
Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation, The American Prospect, Le Monde diplomatique, as well as expert commentary by Richard Bulliet, Mark Hertsgaard, Rami G. Khouri, Tom Porteous, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.
-------------------
Advisory Release: 29 August 2006
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, 1.336.686.9002, rights@agenceglobal.com
-------------------
Hamas, Hizbullah Face Their Greatest Challenges
by Rami G. Khouri
BEIRUT -- The Arab world's two leading self-styled "Islamic resistance movements" -- Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine -- seem to be moving in different directions, but there are lessons to be learned from both. The main one is that armed resistance is primarily a means for these groups. Their ultimate goal is a national order that reflects their society's valid concerns on political legitimacy, sovereignty, ideology and social values. Above all, their success reflects their ability to respond to the real needs of their constituents, rather than to promote any sort of ideal Islamic society or espouse revolutionary rhetoric and wage perpetual war.
As Hizbullah holds its own in Lebanon and the region, it also finds itself preoccupied with the challenges of shifting its center of gravity -- or at least its international image -- from guns to governance. After achieving the two striking feats of driving the Israeli army out of south Lebanon in 2000 and fighting it to a draw in 2006, it has no room left for military endeavors, and nothing more to prove on the battlefield.
It asserted itself in recent years by defying five parties: a weak Lebanese central government, other Lebanese political groups, Israel, the United States, and the dominant regimes in the Arab world. In return, these forces have now physically and politically hemmed it in: The Israeli army will destroy all Lebanon after the next provocation, the Lebanese government has moved 15,000 soldiers to the south, the UN Security Council dispatched another 15,000 international peace-keepers, and Lebanese and Arab political leaders call on Hizbullah to engage and integrate fully in the national governance and security system.
History suggests that fighting resistance wars to liberate one's occupied land is much more straightforward than making a subsequent transition to political responsibility. Hizbullah's most important test is just starting: It must erase the haze of its own inscrutability, remove the ambiguity of its relations with Iran and Syria, and slay the demons of mistrust that plague its relations with many key players, especially in Lebanon. It can do this and retain its integrity and impact, but only if it applies the same serious operating principles to the political realm that it has applied in recent years militarily, socially and in terms of its sheer focus, courage and efficiency.
The parallel lessons from Palestine are instructive and sobering. The Palestinian national resistance movement against Zionism and Western powers since the 1930s has passed through erratic stages of success and failure. The Fateh-dominated PLO made some major political achievements regionally and globally in the 1970s and 80s, only to sink into a sad cycle of complacency, corruption and incompetence after 1990. This ultimately led to its own marginalization, and the political and physical destruction of many aspects of Palestinian society.
Three key responses to this institutional mediocrity and political failure were the rise of Hamas and smaller Islamist groups, the waging of two grassroots and largely spontaneous popular intifadas against Israeli occupation, and the fragmentation of society into local political-military wards, militias and gangs. Hamas' success in resisting Israel militarily ultimately helped drive Israel out of Gaza; it achieved parallel political success in winning local and national elections in 2005-2006.
Its overall trajectory, however, has been more difficult than Hizbullah's. This is mainly because it has been fought simultaneously by a brutal Israeli military and political assault, Fateh and other Arab governments that fear its ilk, and the United States and Europe who have sanctioned and tried to break it. Yet it has also performed poorly in many cases, unable to build on the credibility and legitimacy that it had achieved since its founding less than two decades ago.
A respected member of Hamas in Gaza has now publicly admonished his fellow ruling Islamists and other Palestinians for their failures, charging that, "Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs," and since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza a year ago, "life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden."
These sentiments were published in an article Sunday by Ghazi Hamad, a former Hamas newspaper editor and the spokesman for the current Hamas government. He urged Palestinians to examine their own performance and not blame Israel for all their problems and failures, though he also seemed to place most of the blame on assorted Fateh-linked armed groups in Gaza. His most important point was his insistence on "self-criticism and self-evaluation," instead of the habit of "blaming our mistakes on others."
Hamas has been through tough moments before, including repeated assassinations of its leaders, mass deportations and jailings of its members, and the current political and economic boycott of Israel, the United States and Europe. In light of the lessons of Hizbullah's performance in Lebanon, Hamas must now adjust quickly or risk the same doomed, but self-inflicted, fate as Fateh and the PLO.
As Ghazi Hamad aptly challenged it and Palestinian society to do, it needs to examine its own ways in order to achieve success by being more accountable to its constituents, rather than faithful to fiery or emotional slogans. The performance of Hizbullah and Hamas in the months ahead are worth monitoring, for they will impact greatly on political trends throughout the Arab world.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, and editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star.
Copyright ©2006 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
----------------
Released: 29 August 2006
Word Count: 867
-------------------
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757
Agence Global
www.agenceglobal.com
1.212.731.0757 (main)
1.336.286.6606 (billing)
1.336.686.9002 (rights & permissions)
Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation, The American Prospect, Le Monde diplomatique, as well as expert commentary by Richard Bulliet, Mark Hertsgaard, Rami G. Khouri, Tom Porteous, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Findin Holes in Canada's 'Anti-Terror' Law
Public interest defence way around anti-terror law provisions for media, lawyer argues
Don Butler
CanWest News Service
Friday, August 25, 2006
OTTAWA - A federal lawyer presented a ''modest proposal'' Thursday that he said ensures a contentious section of the federal anti-terrorism law remains well within constitutional bounds, arguing that a public interest defence would limit the scope of the section.
Section 4 of the Security of Information Act makes it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, to give, receive or possess a wide range of ''official secret'' government information and documents.
But Justice Department lawyer Robert Frater proposed that the section's scope is effectively limited by two things - the federal Access to Information Act, and a public interest defence that he argued is available in common law.
The RCMP used Section 4 to obtain search warrants authorizing raids on the home and office of Ottawa Citizen journalist Juliet O'Neill in January 2004 after she wrote a story about Maher Arar based in part on leaked government documents.
Lawyers for the paper and others have argued this week in Ontario Superior Court that the section is so vague and broad that it should be struck down for violating Charter of Rights guarantees of freedom of expression.
He told Judge Lynn Ratushny that the 1983 access act, which provides a right of public access to government documents unless they are specifically exempted, ''fundamentally improved our understanding of what could be given out and what could be withheld.''
It affects the Security of Information Act, he argued, ''because it is a relevant indicator of what secret official information is. Does the access act help me know if I'm entering a zone of risk? I say, of course it does.''
Frater also said Thursday that those who release or distribute secret official information can escape criminal conviction if they can convince a court they were acting in the public interest.
Section 4 is silent on public interest as a defence, but Frater said both Parliament and the Supreme Court have accepted public interest defences in other criminal laws.
Ratushny, he suggested, could reasonably read a public interest defence into Section 4.
''There's nothing illegitimate in considering, as a matter of principle, whether that defence exists.''
The media's main concern, he said, is that government officials might unreasonably withhold authorization to release information of pressing public interest.
''To the extent that we need a safeguard in this statute, it's against that possibility - that authorization will be unreasonably withheld. If you have a public interest defence, it alleviates that concern.''
Such a defence, along with the option of seeking judicial review, he argued, ''ensures a check on government power that is responsive to free speech concerns.''
Though Section 4 forms part of the federal anti-terrorism law, Frater said its main purpose is to deter "the unauthorized release of secret official government information.
''It's about the breach of trust essential to the relationship between the government and its employees.''
In a factum filed with the court, Frater said deterrence of leaking underlies Section 4's criminalization of receipt and retention of secret information.
As well, he said, criminalizing receipt and retention ''is consistent with general criminal law practice that focuses on transactions Parliament wishes to deter. Thus the thief and the fence, the drug trafficker and the possessor, the prostitute and the john, are all liable to prosecution to attempt to stop the conduct in question.''
In the event Ratushny strikes down all or part of Section 4, Frater asked the declaration of invalidity be suspended for one year to permit Parliament to amend the section. A parliamentary committee is currently studying the section, and is expected to report in late December.
If the search warrants authorizing the raids on O'Neill are quashed, Frater also asked Ratushny to hold property seized during the raids for 30 days to allow the government to apply for a new search warrant under different authority.
That, declared Ottawa Citizen lawyer David Paciocco, ''is the most audacious submission I've ever heard.''
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2006
Don Butler
CanWest News Service
Friday, August 25, 2006
OTTAWA - A federal lawyer presented a ''modest proposal'' Thursday that he said ensures a contentious section of the federal anti-terrorism law remains well within constitutional bounds, arguing that a public interest defence would limit the scope of the section.
Section 4 of the Security of Information Act makes it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, to give, receive or possess a wide range of ''official secret'' government information and documents.
But Justice Department lawyer Robert Frater proposed that the section's scope is effectively limited by two things - the federal Access to Information Act, and a public interest defence that he argued is available in common law.
The RCMP used Section 4 to obtain search warrants authorizing raids on the home and office of Ottawa Citizen journalist Juliet O'Neill in January 2004 after she wrote a story about Maher Arar based in part on leaked government documents.
Lawyers for the paper and others have argued this week in Ontario Superior Court that the section is so vague and broad that it should be struck down for violating Charter of Rights guarantees of freedom of expression.
He told Judge Lynn Ratushny that the 1983 access act, which provides a right of public access to government documents unless they are specifically exempted, ''fundamentally improved our understanding of what could be given out and what could be withheld.''
It affects the Security of Information Act, he argued, ''because it is a relevant indicator of what secret official information is. Does the access act help me know if I'm entering a zone of risk? I say, of course it does.''
Frater also said Thursday that those who release or distribute secret official information can escape criminal conviction if they can convince a court they were acting in the public interest.
Section 4 is silent on public interest as a defence, but Frater said both Parliament and the Supreme Court have accepted public interest defences in other criminal laws.
Ratushny, he suggested, could reasonably read a public interest defence into Section 4.
''There's nothing illegitimate in considering, as a matter of principle, whether that defence exists.''
The media's main concern, he said, is that government officials might unreasonably withhold authorization to release information of pressing public interest.
''To the extent that we need a safeguard in this statute, it's against that possibility - that authorization will be unreasonably withheld. If you have a public interest defence, it alleviates that concern.''
Such a defence, along with the option of seeking judicial review, he argued, ''ensures a check on government power that is responsive to free speech concerns.''
Though Section 4 forms part of the federal anti-terrorism law, Frater said its main purpose is to deter "the unauthorized release of secret official government information.
''It's about the breach of trust essential to the relationship between the government and its employees.''
In a factum filed with the court, Frater said deterrence of leaking underlies Section 4's criminalization of receipt and retention of secret information.
As well, he said, criminalizing receipt and retention ''is consistent with general criminal law practice that focuses on transactions Parliament wishes to deter. Thus the thief and the fence, the drug trafficker and the possessor, the prostitute and the john, are all liable to prosecution to attempt to stop the conduct in question.''
In the event Ratushny strikes down all or part of Section 4, Frater asked the declaration of invalidity be suspended for one year to permit Parliament to amend the section. A parliamentary committee is currently studying the section, and is expected to report in late December.
If the search warrants authorizing the raids on O'Neill are quashed, Frater also asked Ratushny to hold property seized during the raids for 30 days to allow the government to apply for a new search warrant under different authority.
That, declared Ottawa Citizen lawyer David Paciocco, ''is the most audacious submission I've ever heard.''
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Presenting the Freedom Agenda: George W. Bush's Newly Birthed Spin
PEJ News - C. L. Cook - I'll admit: I'm a sucker for a well turned phrase. And Dubya's overworked PR machine has provided a plethora of, if not veritable, then memorable examples of these. Pressed yesterday during a Q & A with reporters to explain his umpteenth repetition of an implied connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the September 11th attacks, George Bush unveiled the new and improved, rebranded logo for his long-stale War on Terror label.
www.PEJ.org
Presenting the Freedom Agenda:
George W. Bush's Newly Birthed Spin
C. L. Cook
PEJ News
August 22, 2006
It has all the elements: Short and punchy; vague and open to interpretation; historically vacant and wilfully ignorant of the current situation; sizzling with sound bite pizzazz to appeal to a mindless press. In short, a real winner!
Answering the intrepid reporter, likely not to find work within a hundred yards of the "President" again, Mr. Bush said:
"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East."
The Freedom Agenda
Usually these PR gems are saved for major addresses and such, and so may have the plans for the debut of this sure to become immortal bit of flackery been; but as another great maestro of the turn of a phrase once cautioned: "The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley."
A-gley sums up the recent careers of George and his merry band of nitwits nicely. But this is no ode to mice we've seen unfold across the Middle East these last terrible years. And it may be said, has been said, that George and his wrecking crew never had an ounce's concern for democracy, or its implicit agenda of freedom.
Risking falling into the dread "conspiracy theorist" ash can, I wonder if the reputedly linguistically challenged, intellectually awkward George of the Bungle really let go his load prematurely with TFA, or was this just another clever way to have the press, and other useful idiots, send his semaphore up the old flag pole for him to see who would salute? It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Here's a snippet from Bush's epic encounter with the fourth estate yesterday.
QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”
Well, I might have been premature with the whole Bush cleverly planted this meme purposefully thing; might be a bit of a stretch. It's possible he really did get flustered enough, being unused to the media sassing back, that he really did spill the beans on the administration's next Newspeak headline.
Now, the fun will be seeing what, after all those pencils worn to stubs at Bush's PR HQ to get to; "The Freedom Agenda" are gonna come up with next. Will it be in time for His next big public address? "Quick somebody, call up David Frum!"
Perhaps it's much ado over nothing. Bush doesn't really need new material; he has been reading from the original script for years. Why mess with a good thing now? Why indeed. George and company seem intent on carrying through their own "agenda" to make of the Middle East a cauldron, a crucible in which to forge their vision of the future.
Yesterday's little fracas with the press is just one of many examples of the nation's unease with the direction Bush and his tight group are taking the country. When I say, "the nation" I mean of course the wafer thin elite ruling the airwaves and holding most of the wealth. It seems the short leash those masters of America thought contained their servant George is proving too thin to constrain some of his baser instincts. But, a rap on the nose with a rolled newspaper may too be too little too late to bring him to heel.
To George and Dick, Don and Richard, Paul and Doug, their project has proven a great success so far. They have accomplished, in part, what they set out to do; now all that remains is to finish the job in Iran and Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.
And if that can't now be called 'The Freedom Agenda,' it will be called something else,
but to they it will be simply a rose by another name.
C. L. Cook is a contributing editor to PEJ News, and host of Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program, broad/webcast from the University of Victoria. You can check out the GR Blog here.
Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.
Doubts about Karzai growing in Afghanistan
Doubts about Karzai growing in Afghanistan
By Carlotta Gall The New York Times
Published: August 22, 2006
After months of widespread frustration in Afghanistan over corruption, the economy and a lack of justice and security, doubts about President Hamid Karzai have led to a crisis of confidence in the country.
Interviews with ordinary Afghans, foreign diplomats and Afghan officials make clear that the expanding Taliban insurgency in the south represents the most serious challenge yet to Karzai's presidency.
The insurgency has precipitated an eruption of doubts about Karzai, widely viewed as having failed to attend to a range of problems that have left Afghans asking what the government is doing.
Corruption is so widespread, the government apparently so lethargic, and the divide between rich and poor so great, that Karzai is losing public support, warn officials like Ahmad Fahim Hakim, vice chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.
"Nothing that he promised has materialized," Hakim said, echoing the comments of diplomats and others in Kabul, the capital. "Beneath the surface it is boiling."
For the first time since Karzai took power four and half years ago, Afghans and diplomats are speculating about who might replace him. Most agree that the answer for now is no one, leaving the fate of the U.S.-led military involvement in Afghanistan intimately tied to Karzai's own success or failure.
On Tuesday, Karzai's office announced that he had spoken that day with President George W. Bush, who assured him of continued American support. Karzai had also accepted Bush's invitation to visit Washington.
Karzai, a consummate tribal politician, has been the cornerstone of the U.S.-led effort to create a centralized democratic government in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban government driven from power in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
To his supporters, he has managed to keep the peace in a fractious society by giving regional warlords and armed leaders a stake in power, while managing to set the country on the road to a democratic future.
"The perception of growing insecurity has affected the psyche of the Afghan people," Jawed Ludin, the president's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview from Kabul. But he called it a reality check rather than a crisis.
He said that people "still trust" Karzai and "still think he can lead them."
But the costs of his compromises are becoming harder to stomach for average Afghans and some foreign donors. Critics say they have insulated many people from the benefits of democratic change and have hampered the running of the president's administration and local government.
Riots in Kabul on May 29, which killed 17 people in the worst violence in the capital since the Taliban were ousted, were a wake-up call, many there say.
The violence came after three Afghans were killed by a runaway American military truck, and four more killed when American soldiers fired into an angry crowd.
Protesters later rampaged through the streets, attacking foreign offices and chanting "Death to Karzai," an indication of how he is blamed for the growing disenchantment.
"He was shaken," said a Western diplomat, asking not to be named because of the political content of his remarks.
Recriminations against Karzai have continued, and his own missteps have not helped redeem his political standing.
In a reaction to the riots, Karzai appointed a powerful local commander with known links to organized crime as police chief of Kabul. He also appointed to senior police posts 13 former commanders who were to have been weeded out under long-awaited improvements in the police system.
Karzai's aides indicated that the steps were necessary to ensure security in the capital. But the appointments further alienated foreign diplomats and aid workers as well as ordinary Afghans.
"He is too accommodating," said Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a policy research organization. "The police reform was incredibly disappointing."
Recent interviews with a range of Afghans illustrated a common theme of complaints against corrupt and self- serving government officials.
Earlier this month, 60 members of the Parliament, which has until now been largely supportive, signed a statement protesting the appointment of certain officials and the poor performance of his government.
A group of elders from Baghlan Province, in northern Afghanistan, said they had come to Kabul to seek the replacement of their governor, who they said was concerned only with his own power and did nothing for his people. But they had no success.
"We just want a neutral, impartial governor," Abdul Shukur Urfani, one of the representatives, said. "People will start demonstrating because they are dissatisfied with what the government is doing."
Karzai has dismissed many such problems as petty corruption, but the range of corruption in fact runs both large and small.
At one end of the scale is a housing scandal from three years ago, when cabinet ministers, in Karzai's absence, awarded themselves and friends prime real estate in Kabul, where land prices have shot up since the U.S. invasion.
An investigation was quietly dropped and the officials were allowed to build their ostentatious villas, which now tower above passers-by as a constant reminder of official excess. Elsewhere, though corruption is small in scale, it has an enormous impact on the poor, which is most of the population.
After months of widespread frustration in Afghanistan over corruption, the economy and a lack of justice and security, doubts about President Hamid Karzai have led to a crisis of confidence in the country.
Interviews with ordinary Afghans, foreign diplomats and Afghan officials make clear that the expanding Taliban insurgency in the south represents the most serious challenge yet to Karzai's presidency.
The insurgency has precipitated an eruption of doubts about Karzai, widely viewed as having failed to attend to a range of problems that have left Afghans asking what the government is doing.
Corruption is so widespread, the government apparently so lethargic, and the divide between rich and poor so great, that Karzai is losing public support, warn officials like Ahmad Fahim Hakim, vice chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.
"Nothing that he promised has materialized," Hakim said, echoing the comments of diplomats and others in Kabul, the capital. "Beneath the surface it is boiling."
For the first time since Karzai took power four and half years ago, Afghans and diplomats are speculating about who might replace him. Most agree that the answer for now is no one, leaving the fate of the U.S.-led military involvement in Afghanistan intimately tied to Karzai's own success or failure.
On Tuesday, Karzai's office announced that he had spoken that day with President George W. Bush, who assured him of continued American support. Karzai had also accepted Bush's invitation to visit Washington.
Karzai, a consummate tribal politician, has been the cornerstone of the U.S.-led effort to create a centralized democratic government in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban government driven from power in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
To his supporters, he has managed to keep the peace in a fractious society by giving regional warlords and armed leaders a stake in power, while managing to set the country on the road to a democratic future.
"The perception of growing insecurity has affected the psyche of the Afghan people," Jawed Ludin, the president's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview from Kabul. But he called it a reality check rather than a crisis.
He said that people "still trust" Karzai and "still think he can lead them."
But the costs of his compromises are becoming harder to stomach for average Afghans and some foreign donors. Critics say they have insulated many people from the benefits of democratic change and have hampered the running of the president's administration and local government.
Riots in Kabul on May 29, which killed 17 people in the worst violence in the capital since the Taliban were ousted, were a wake-up call, many there say.
The violence came after three Afghans were killed by a runaway American military truck, and four more killed when American soldiers fired into an angry crowd.
Protesters later rampaged through the streets, attacking foreign offices and chanting "Death to Karzai," an indication of how he is blamed for the growing disenchantment.
"He was shaken," said a Western diplomat, asking not to be named because of the political content of his remarks.
Recriminations against Karzai have continued, and his own missteps have not helped redeem his political standing.
In a reaction to the riots, Karzai appointed a powerful local commander with known links to organized crime as police chief of Kabul. He also appointed to senior police posts 13 former commanders who were to have been weeded out under long-awaited improvements in the police system.
Karzai's aides indicated that the steps were necessary to ensure security in the capital. But the appointments further alienated foreign diplomats and aid workers as well as ordinary Afghans.
"He is too accommodating," said Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a policy research organization. "The police reform was incredibly disappointing."
Recent interviews with a range of Afghans illustrated a common theme of complaints against corrupt and self- serving government officials.
Earlier this month, 60 members of the Parliament, which has until now been largely supportive, signed a statement protesting the appointment of certain officials and the poor performance of his government.
A group of elders from Baghlan Province, in northern Afghanistan, said they had come to Kabul to seek the replacement of their governor, who they said was concerned only with his own power and did nothing for his people. But they had no success.
"We just want a neutral, impartial governor," Abdul Shukur Urfani, one of the representatives, said. "People will start demonstrating because they are dissatisfied with what the government is doing."
Karzai has dismissed many such problems as petty corruption, but the range of corruption in fact runs both large and small.
At one end of the scale is a housing scandal from three years ago, when cabinet ministers, in Karzai's absence, awarded themselves and friends prime real estate in Kabul, where land prices have shot up since the U.S. invasion.
An investigation was quietly dropped and the officials were allowed to build their ostentatious villas, which now tower above passers-by as a constant reminder of official excess. Elsewhere, though corruption is small in scale, it has an enormous impact on the poor, which is most of the population.
By Carlotta Gall The New York Times
Published: August 22, 2006
After months of widespread frustration in Afghanistan over corruption, the economy and a lack of justice and security, doubts about President Hamid Karzai have led to a crisis of confidence in the country.
Interviews with ordinary Afghans, foreign diplomats and Afghan officials make clear that the expanding Taliban insurgency in the south represents the most serious challenge yet to Karzai's presidency.
The insurgency has precipitated an eruption of doubts about Karzai, widely viewed as having failed to attend to a range of problems that have left Afghans asking what the government is doing.
Corruption is so widespread, the government apparently so lethargic, and the divide between rich and poor so great, that Karzai is losing public support, warn officials like Ahmad Fahim Hakim, vice chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.
"Nothing that he promised has materialized," Hakim said, echoing the comments of diplomats and others in Kabul, the capital. "Beneath the surface it is boiling."
For the first time since Karzai took power four and half years ago, Afghans and diplomats are speculating about who might replace him. Most agree that the answer for now is no one, leaving the fate of the U.S.-led military involvement in Afghanistan intimately tied to Karzai's own success or failure.
On Tuesday, Karzai's office announced that he had spoken that day with President George W. Bush, who assured him of continued American support. Karzai had also accepted Bush's invitation to visit Washington.
Karzai, a consummate tribal politician, has been the cornerstone of the U.S.-led effort to create a centralized democratic government in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban government driven from power in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
To his supporters, he has managed to keep the peace in a fractious society by giving regional warlords and armed leaders a stake in power, while managing to set the country on the road to a democratic future.
"The perception of growing insecurity has affected the psyche of the Afghan people," Jawed Ludin, the president's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview from Kabul. But he called it a reality check rather than a crisis.
He said that people "still trust" Karzai and "still think he can lead them."
But the costs of his compromises are becoming harder to stomach for average Afghans and some foreign donors. Critics say they have insulated many people from the benefits of democratic change and have hampered the running of the president's administration and local government.
Riots in Kabul on May 29, which killed 17 people in the worst violence in the capital since the Taliban were ousted, were a wake-up call, many there say.
The violence came after three Afghans were killed by a runaway American military truck, and four more killed when American soldiers fired into an angry crowd.
Protesters later rampaged through the streets, attacking foreign offices and chanting "Death to Karzai," an indication of how he is blamed for the growing disenchantment.
"He was shaken," said a Western diplomat, asking not to be named because of the political content of his remarks.
Recriminations against Karzai have continued, and his own missteps have not helped redeem his political standing.
In a reaction to the riots, Karzai appointed a powerful local commander with known links to organized crime as police chief of Kabul. He also appointed to senior police posts 13 former commanders who were to have been weeded out under long-awaited improvements in the police system.
Karzai's aides indicated that the steps were necessary to ensure security in the capital. But the appointments further alienated foreign diplomats and aid workers as well as ordinary Afghans.
"He is too accommodating," said Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a policy research organization. "The police reform was incredibly disappointing."
Recent interviews with a range of Afghans illustrated a common theme of complaints against corrupt and self- serving government officials.
Earlier this month, 60 members of the Parliament, which has until now been largely supportive, signed a statement protesting the appointment of certain officials and the poor performance of his government.
A group of elders from Baghlan Province, in northern Afghanistan, said they had come to Kabul to seek the replacement of their governor, who they said was concerned only with his own power and did nothing for his people. But they had no success.
"We just want a neutral, impartial governor," Abdul Shukur Urfani, one of the representatives, said. "People will start demonstrating because they are dissatisfied with what the government is doing."
Karzai has dismissed many such problems as petty corruption, but the range of corruption in fact runs both large and small.
At one end of the scale is a housing scandal from three years ago, when cabinet ministers, in Karzai's absence, awarded themselves and friends prime real estate in Kabul, where land prices have shot up since the U.S. invasion.
An investigation was quietly dropped and the officials were allowed to build their ostentatious villas, which now tower above passers-by as a constant reminder of official excess. Elsewhere, though corruption is small in scale, it has an enormous impact on the poor, which is most of the population.
After months of widespread frustration in Afghanistan over corruption, the economy and a lack of justice and security, doubts about President Hamid Karzai have led to a crisis of confidence in the country.
Interviews with ordinary Afghans, foreign diplomats and Afghan officials make clear that the expanding Taliban insurgency in the south represents the most serious challenge yet to Karzai's presidency.
The insurgency has precipitated an eruption of doubts about Karzai, widely viewed as having failed to attend to a range of problems that have left Afghans asking what the government is doing.
Corruption is so widespread, the government apparently so lethargic, and the divide between rich and poor so great, that Karzai is losing public support, warn officials like Ahmad Fahim Hakim, vice chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.
"Nothing that he promised has materialized," Hakim said, echoing the comments of diplomats and others in Kabul, the capital. "Beneath the surface it is boiling."
For the first time since Karzai took power four and half years ago, Afghans and diplomats are speculating about who might replace him. Most agree that the answer for now is no one, leaving the fate of the U.S.-led military involvement in Afghanistan intimately tied to Karzai's own success or failure.
On Tuesday, Karzai's office announced that he had spoken that day with President George W. Bush, who assured him of continued American support. Karzai had also accepted Bush's invitation to visit Washington.
Karzai, a consummate tribal politician, has been the cornerstone of the U.S.-led effort to create a centralized democratic government in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban government driven from power in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
To his supporters, he has managed to keep the peace in a fractious society by giving regional warlords and armed leaders a stake in power, while managing to set the country on the road to a democratic future.
"The perception of growing insecurity has affected the psyche of the Afghan people," Jawed Ludin, the president's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview from Kabul. But he called it a reality check rather than a crisis.
He said that people "still trust" Karzai and "still think he can lead them."
But the costs of his compromises are becoming harder to stomach for average Afghans and some foreign donors. Critics say they have insulated many people from the benefits of democratic change and have hampered the running of the president's administration and local government.
Riots in Kabul on May 29, which killed 17 people in the worst violence in the capital since the Taliban were ousted, were a wake-up call, many there say.
The violence came after three Afghans were killed by a runaway American military truck, and four more killed when American soldiers fired into an angry crowd.
Protesters later rampaged through the streets, attacking foreign offices and chanting "Death to Karzai," an indication of how he is blamed for the growing disenchantment.
"He was shaken," said a Western diplomat, asking not to be named because of the political content of his remarks.
Recriminations against Karzai have continued, and his own missteps have not helped redeem his political standing.
In a reaction to the riots, Karzai appointed a powerful local commander with known links to organized crime as police chief of Kabul. He also appointed to senior police posts 13 former commanders who were to have been weeded out under long-awaited improvements in the police system.
Karzai's aides indicated that the steps were necessary to ensure security in the capital. But the appointments further alienated foreign diplomats and aid workers as well as ordinary Afghans.
"He is too accommodating," said Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a policy research organization. "The police reform was incredibly disappointing."
Recent interviews with a range of Afghans illustrated a common theme of complaints against corrupt and self- serving government officials.
Earlier this month, 60 members of the Parliament, which has until now been largely supportive, signed a statement protesting the appointment of certain officials and the poor performance of his government.
A group of elders from Baghlan Province, in northern Afghanistan, said they had come to Kabul to seek the replacement of their governor, who they said was concerned only with his own power and did nothing for his people. But they had no success.
"We just want a neutral, impartial governor," Abdul Shukur Urfani, one of the representatives, said. "People will start demonstrating because they are dissatisfied with what the government is doing."
Karzai has dismissed many such problems as petty corruption, but the range of corruption in fact runs both large and small.
At one end of the scale is a housing scandal from three years ago, when cabinet ministers, in Karzai's absence, awarded themselves and friends prime real estate in Kabul, where land prices have shot up since the U.S. invasion.
An investigation was quietly dropped and the officials were allowed to build their ostentatious villas, which now tower above passers-by as a constant reminder of official excess. Elsewhere, though corruption is small in scale, it has an enormous impact on the poor, which is most of the population.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Unexploded cluster bombs prompt fear and fury in returning refugees
Unexploded cluster bombs prompt fear and fury in returning refugees
Four dead as mine-clearing teams fear death toll from Israeli weapons could soar
Declan Walsh in Yahmour
Monday August 21, 2006
The Guardian
When the guns went silent in Aitta Shaab, a war-ravaged village close to the Israeli border, three children skipped through the rubble looking for a little fun.
Hurdling over lumps of crushed concrete and dodging spikes of twisted metal, Sukna, Hassan and Merwa, aged 10 to 12, paused before a curious object. Sukna picked it up. The terrifying blast flung her to the ground, thrusting metal shards into her liver. Hassan's abdomen was cut open. Merwa was hit in the leg and arm.
"We thought it was just a little ball," said Hassan with a hoarse whisper in the intensive care ward at Tyre's Jabal Amel hospital. In the next bed Sukna, a ventilator cupped to her mouth and a tangle of tubes from her arms, said even less.
Her mother watched anxiously. "The Israelis wanted to defeat Hizbullah," said Najah Saleh, 40. "But what did these children ever do to them?"
Israel may be pulling out of Lebanon but its soldiers leave behind a lethal legacy of this summer's 34-day war. The south is carpeted with unexploded cluster bombs, innocuous looking black canisters, barely larger than a torch battery, which pose a deadly threat to villagers stumbling back to their homes.
Mine-clearing teams scrambling across the region have logged 89 cluster bomb sites so far, and expect to find about 110 more. Meanwhile, casualties are being taken into hospital - four dead and 21 injured so far. Officials fear the toll could eventually stretch into the thousands.
"We already had a major landmine problem from previous Israeli invasions, but this is far worse," said Chris Clark of the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre in Tyre, standing before a map filled with flags indicating bomb sites.
Cluster bombs are permitted under international law, but UN and human rights officials claim Israel violated provisions forbidding their use in urban areas. "We're finding them in orange plantations, on streets, in cars, near hospitals - pretty much everywhere," Mr Clark said.
The bombs are ejected from artillery shells in mid-flight, showering a wide area with explosions that can kill within 10 metres (33ft). But up to a quarter fail to explode, creating minefields that kill civilians once the war is over. A decades-old campaign to ban them has failed.
Israel turned to cluster bombs in the last week of the war, apparently frustrated at the failure of conventional weapons to rout Hizbullah fighters from their foxholes. Mine-clearance teams are finding evidence pointing to their provenance: the US, the world's largest cluster bomb manufacturer, which gave Israel $2.2bn (£1.2bn) in military aid last year.
In Nabatiye, 15 people were injured in just one day along a bomb-strewn road. In Tibnin, 210 bombs were found around the town hospital. "That's about as inappropriate [a use of cluster bombs] as you can get," Mr Clark said.
In Yahmour, a hilly frontline village that has become a complex urban minefield, minesweepers from the UK-based Mine Action Group have cleared the main roads and some house entrances. But danger lurks everywhere. One elderly woman lost her leg in an explosion last Monday as she swept her yard.
Now holes pock the road, yellow tape appears around fields and houses, and residents tip-toe around the "grape bombs". Ilham Tarhini, 45, stood at her front door appealing for help. After returning from refuge in Syria three days ago she found tiny bomblets poking from the soil of her garden of olive trees. From where she was standing she could count eight: "I'm afraid to step into the streets."
But the most volatile payload sat in Jamil Zuhoor's living room. During the war an unexploded rocket packed with bomblets punched through his front wall, skidding to a halt before a chest of drawers. "I can't see us moving back in here for another year at least," he said, shutting the door of his shattered house.
The UN is appealing for money and minesweepers. With such help it hopes the worst-hit areas can be cleared within six months, Mr Clarke said. But until then residents live in fear.
Many share the blame equally between Israel and the US. "It's like we are living in a prison," said Aisa Hussain, 38, a Yahmour resident who has ordered his children to remain inside his house.
Strolling through the village he pointed to yet another tiny black canister perched under a tree. "You see what America is sending us," he said bitterly. "This is their idea of democracy."
Backstory
Cluster bombs were first used by the Germans in the second world war but have become a standard weapon for many countries, including Britain, France and Italy.
The most popular delivery device, the American-made M26 rocket, scatters 644 bomblets over 20,000 square metres. Under test conditions up to 23% of bomblets from the M26 failed to explode on impact. The United States keeps 370,000 such rockets in stock.
The M26 inflicted hundreds of civilian casualties in Iraq in 2003, says Human Rights Watch, over populated areas. The British army used M26s in the 1991 Gulf war
The US halted cluster bomb exports to Israel in 1982 after indiscriminate use against civilians but rescinded the ban in 1988. Belgium is the only country in the world that has banned cluster bombs.
Four dead as mine-clearing teams fear death toll from Israeli weapons could soar
Declan Walsh in Yahmour
Monday August 21, 2006
The Guardian
When the guns went silent in Aitta Shaab, a war-ravaged village close to the Israeli border, three children skipped through the rubble looking for a little fun.
Hurdling over lumps of crushed concrete and dodging spikes of twisted metal, Sukna, Hassan and Merwa, aged 10 to 12, paused before a curious object. Sukna picked it up. The terrifying blast flung her to the ground, thrusting metal shards into her liver. Hassan's abdomen was cut open. Merwa was hit in the leg and arm.
"We thought it was just a little ball," said Hassan with a hoarse whisper in the intensive care ward at Tyre's Jabal Amel hospital. In the next bed Sukna, a ventilator cupped to her mouth and a tangle of tubes from her arms, said even less.
Her mother watched anxiously. "The Israelis wanted to defeat Hizbullah," said Najah Saleh, 40. "But what did these children ever do to them?"
Israel may be pulling out of Lebanon but its soldiers leave behind a lethal legacy of this summer's 34-day war. The south is carpeted with unexploded cluster bombs, innocuous looking black canisters, barely larger than a torch battery, which pose a deadly threat to villagers stumbling back to their homes.
Mine-clearing teams scrambling across the region have logged 89 cluster bomb sites so far, and expect to find about 110 more. Meanwhile, casualties are being taken into hospital - four dead and 21 injured so far. Officials fear the toll could eventually stretch into the thousands.
"We already had a major landmine problem from previous Israeli invasions, but this is far worse," said Chris Clark of the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre in Tyre, standing before a map filled with flags indicating bomb sites.
Cluster bombs are permitted under international law, but UN and human rights officials claim Israel violated provisions forbidding their use in urban areas. "We're finding them in orange plantations, on streets, in cars, near hospitals - pretty much everywhere," Mr Clark said.
The bombs are ejected from artillery shells in mid-flight, showering a wide area with explosions that can kill within 10 metres (33ft). But up to a quarter fail to explode, creating minefields that kill civilians once the war is over. A decades-old campaign to ban them has failed.
Israel turned to cluster bombs in the last week of the war, apparently frustrated at the failure of conventional weapons to rout Hizbullah fighters from their foxholes. Mine-clearance teams are finding evidence pointing to their provenance: the US, the world's largest cluster bomb manufacturer, which gave Israel $2.2bn (£1.2bn) in military aid last year.
In Nabatiye, 15 people were injured in just one day along a bomb-strewn road. In Tibnin, 210 bombs were found around the town hospital. "That's about as inappropriate [a use of cluster bombs] as you can get," Mr Clark said.
In Yahmour, a hilly frontline village that has become a complex urban minefield, minesweepers from the UK-based Mine Action Group have cleared the main roads and some house entrances. But danger lurks everywhere. One elderly woman lost her leg in an explosion last Monday as she swept her yard.
Now holes pock the road, yellow tape appears around fields and houses, and residents tip-toe around the "grape bombs". Ilham Tarhini, 45, stood at her front door appealing for help. After returning from refuge in Syria three days ago she found tiny bomblets poking from the soil of her garden of olive trees. From where she was standing she could count eight: "I'm afraid to step into the streets."
But the most volatile payload sat in Jamil Zuhoor's living room. During the war an unexploded rocket packed with bomblets punched through his front wall, skidding to a halt before a chest of drawers. "I can't see us moving back in here for another year at least," he said, shutting the door of his shattered house.
The UN is appealing for money and minesweepers. With such help it hopes the worst-hit areas can be cleared within six months, Mr Clarke said. But until then residents live in fear.
Many share the blame equally between Israel and the US. "It's like we are living in a prison," said Aisa Hussain, 38, a Yahmour resident who has ordered his children to remain inside his house.
Strolling through the village he pointed to yet another tiny black canister perched under a tree. "You see what America is sending us," he said bitterly. "This is their idea of democracy."
Backstory
Cluster bombs were first used by the Germans in the second world war but have become a standard weapon for many countries, including Britain, France and Italy.
The most popular delivery device, the American-made M26 rocket, scatters 644 bomblets over 20,000 square metres. Under test conditions up to 23% of bomblets from the M26 failed to explode on impact. The United States keeps 370,000 such rockets in stock.
The M26 inflicted hundreds of civilian casualties in Iraq in 2003, says Human Rights Watch, over populated areas. The British army used M26s in the 1991 Gulf war
The US halted cluster bomb exports to Israel in 1982 after indiscriminate use against civilians but rescinded the ban in 1988. Belgium is the only country in the world that has banned cluster bombs.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Why Democracies evolve into Dictatorships
By James Cooke The strategy here is limited to educating people about the destructive policies of the Republicans and hoping that in response, a protest or political movement will evolve powerful enough to either reform or displace those in power. Education of course, is absolutely crucial in transforming any dissident organization into an entity capable of action and results. However, by focusing only on the policies of the Republicans, without explaining the larger framework from whence they came, political education is greatly hindered, limiting the potential for effective action. First published at Socialist Perspectives - a weekly blog dedicated to current events, history, and political theory from a socialist viewpoint. http://socialistperspectives.blogspot.com |
Information Cleansing, Canadian Style
Information Cleansing, Canadian Style
by Bill Berkowitz
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 18, 2006
If you're a teacher, student, journalist or just a plain concerned citizen interested in finding well-researched documentation about climate change, you can no longer depend on the Canadian government to supply that information.
According to Canada's Liberal Party, since early July, the country's government -- under conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- has been systematically scrubbing its websites of information regarding global warming and the Kyoto Protocol treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
(As of Wednesday, Aug. 16, when you visit the government of Canada's Climate Change website, you find the following message: "The Government of Canada Climate Change site is currently unavailable.")
Despite its relatively short time in office, the Harper government has been repeatedly accused of following the lead of the George W. Bush administration in the United States.
Now, it appears it has taken up the Bush administration's habit of mixing science and politics by purposefully expunging information from federal websites dealing with climate change and its ramifications. In addition, in designing its new "Made in Canada" plan to deal with the environment and global warming -- a plan due to be unveiled in October -- government officials are working in secrecy and without significant participation from environmental organizations.
Harper's skepticism about global warming seems in line with the position of Pres. Bush, who has repeatedly claimed that the "jury is still out" on the issue. The prime minister has himself questioned the science of climate change, calling it a "controversial hypothesis."
His former environment critic, Bob Mills, has described the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate change, which had been ratified by Canada's parliament during the previous government, "a great socialist plot."
According to a statement issued in late July by the Liberal Party, the Harper team "is engaging in revisionist science by systematically removing references to climate change from government websites."
"This is a government in denial about climate change," said Liberal Environment Critic Hon. John Godfrey. "They don't like the science, and now they want to censor it. This is Orwellian."
MP Mark Holland pointed out that the Harper "government is tied closely to leading climate change skeptics in the United States and the petroleum industry. This government has a track record of listening to people with dubious views on the environment and climate change. They pretend to be interested in a 'Made in Canada' approach, but this is code for doing nothing."
"The feds' own climate change site once offered a verbose, but realistic analysis of the problem [of global warming] and a high-minded, but unconvincing account of what the government was doing about it," wrote Richard Littlemore in a commentary posted in mid-July at DeSmogBlog.com.
"Never mind removing a reference to Kyoto; the words 'climate change' have been expunged from everything except the website title," maintained Littlemore, a journalist, speechwriter and senior counselor at James Hoggan & Associates, a Canadian public relations firm.
"The government's strategy of pretending to be concerned about the environment while both dismantling programs to address climate change and scrubbing government websites clean of any information proving that global warming exists has Frank Luntz written all over it," added Liberal Party MP Mark Holland.
Luntz, who met with Harper and his conservative colleagues earlier this year, is a high-profile political pollster and strategist, who has helped shape the U.S. Republican Party's political agenda and messaging for more than a decade. The New Yorker magazine's Hendrik Hertzberg recently described Luntz as the "Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as 'death tax' for estate tax and 'personal accounts' for Social Security privatization."
One section of an infamous 2002 Luntz-authored memorandum, instructing Republican congressional candidates, was titled "Winning the Global Warming Debate: An Overview." Luntz advised candidates to "continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
He maintained that "The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science... The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
Ironically, while the Bush administration, and the Harper government, may still be sticking with this script, Luntz appears to have changed his mind on global warming. In a recent documentary first aired on the BBC, Luntz said that he "think[s] most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate."
When asked about the advice about climate change that he had been giving for years, Luntz said it was fair when he gave it. He added that if the Bush administration is still questioning the science, "That's up to the [them]. I'm not the administration. What they want to do is their business. And it's nothing to do with what I write. And it's nothing to do with what I believe."
The Liberal Party's press release also pointed to Harper's "close friendship" with former EnCana President and CEO Gwyn Morgan, "a leading climate change skeptic in Alberta, who Harper tried unsuccessfully to appoint to a position overseeing government patronage appointments."
"This is all about controlling information and not about controlling greenhouse gases," said Godfrey. "The government would be thrilled if the Canadian public simply forgot about global warming, and we're simply not going to allow that to happen."
Meanwhile, the Harper government has pledged to produce a comprehensive environmental initiative in October that will supposedly include programs dealing with curbing greenhouse emissions blamed for global warming. Still in its formative stages, government officials maintain that they have been seeking a broad range of views on the issue, but according to a recent report by the Chronicle Herald, "many environmental groups say they've been shut out."
"The reality is that the public has not been consulted at all," said Ann Coxworth of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, one of the groups in the Climate Action Network, a coalition of environmental groups that has organized public forums and workshops in a number of Canadian cities.
Shortly after taking office, Harper put the kybosh on the Liberals' Project Green. The creation of the new environmental initiative appears to follow in the footsteps established by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney when he set about developing the Bush administration's energy plan. The Cheney Energy Task Force worked in secret and saw the Bush administration lean heavily on advice from utility companies, and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Harper project has thus far pretty much excluded environmental groups, and has been working "under tight secrecy," The Chronicle Herald reported.
"They're not giving us enough of what they intend to do for us to give them any significant advice on how to proceed," said John Bennett, executive director of the Climate Action Network. "We need to have a plan that all Canadians can work together on and you don't get a plan like that by going into a back room and then making an announcement six months later."
Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange.com column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right.
Other Recent Articles by Bill Berkowitz
* Christian Right Steps Up Pro-Israel Lobbying
* Meet the Fiery Karl Zinsmeister
* Nativists Declare Open Season on Undocumented Immigrants
* Pastor John Hagee Spearheads Christians United for Israel
* War on Christians?
* Michael Joyce (1942-2006)
* John Ashcroft Spreads His Wings
* Foaming Campus Cleanser Sputters at Temple
* The House That Jack Abramoff Built Begins to Crumble
* The Tumultuous and Tawdry Travels of Neil Bush
* The Mogul, the Movie and the Man on a Mission
* Crony in the Bird Flu Seat
* “Villains Honoring Villains”
* Christmas Under Attack: A Manufactured Crisis
* Rev. Pat Robertson: Dead End or No End in Sight?
* Bishops and Pawns
* Wal-Marting Philanthropy
* Sex and the Single Nominee
* Ohio Players
* The Christian Right's Piece of the “Promised Land”
* Bush Adopts Chunk of Heritage Foundation's Agenda to Rebuild Gulf Coast
* Team Bush's African American Conundrum
* David Horowitz Tackles Immigration
* The Politics of Slander
* Minutemen to Spread Wings
* Selling Brand Kurdistan
* Still Colson After All These Years
* Deepening the Faith: Bush and Congress Aim to Institutionalize Faith-Based Initiative
* William Greene's Angry and Mobile Rapid Response Machine
* Tony Perkins' Family Research Council
* “Heathens” Not Welcome at Air Force Academy
* Paying to Play (Part I)
* Tom Delay's Right Arm
* Amway: “Masters of Deception”
* Deathbed Dollars
* Crusader Nation
* Pope Benedict XVI's Questionable Qualifications
* Rehearsals for the Rapture
* The Schiavo Case's Intended and Unintended Consequences
* Lurching Toward Theocracy
* Team Schiavo's Deep Pockets
* Super-Sized Food Industry Targets Families
* Whitman's Crusade Could be Running on Empty
* The Secret Wars of Judi Bari is Mean-Spirited and Loose with the Facts
* Christian Right Mum on Gannon Affair
* Wade Horn: The Marrying Man
* Hunting Hillary Clinton
* Faith, Fabrications, and Fantasy (Part 2)
* Faith, Fabrications, and Fantasy (Part 1)
* Spy Cams on Campus
* Spellings Slashes, Dobson Stews
* To Hell, and They're Coming Back
* Overdosed
* Claude Allen in The House
* SpongeBob GayPants?
by Bill Berkowitz
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 18, 2006
If you're a teacher, student, journalist or just a plain concerned citizen interested in finding well-researched documentation about climate change, you can no longer depend on the Canadian government to supply that information.
According to Canada's Liberal Party, since early July, the country's government -- under conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- has been systematically scrubbing its websites of information regarding global warming and the Kyoto Protocol treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
(As of Wednesday, Aug. 16, when you visit the government of Canada's Climate Change website, you find the following message: "The Government of Canada Climate Change site is currently unavailable.")
Despite its relatively short time in office, the Harper government has been repeatedly accused of following the lead of the George W. Bush administration in the United States.
Now, it appears it has taken up the Bush administration's habit of mixing science and politics by purposefully expunging information from federal websites dealing with climate change and its ramifications. In addition, in designing its new "Made in Canada" plan to deal with the environment and global warming -- a plan due to be unveiled in October -- government officials are working in secrecy and without significant participation from environmental organizations.
Harper's skepticism about global warming seems in line with the position of Pres. Bush, who has repeatedly claimed that the "jury is still out" on the issue. The prime minister has himself questioned the science of climate change, calling it a "controversial hypothesis."
His former environment critic, Bob Mills, has described the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate change, which had been ratified by Canada's parliament during the previous government, "a great socialist plot."
According to a statement issued in late July by the Liberal Party, the Harper team "is engaging in revisionist science by systematically removing references to climate change from government websites."
"This is a government in denial about climate change," said Liberal Environment Critic Hon. John Godfrey. "They don't like the science, and now they want to censor it. This is Orwellian."
MP Mark Holland pointed out that the Harper "government is tied closely to leading climate change skeptics in the United States and the petroleum industry. This government has a track record of listening to people with dubious views on the environment and climate change. They pretend to be interested in a 'Made in Canada' approach, but this is code for doing nothing."
"The feds' own climate change site once offered a verbose, but realistic analysis of the problem [of global warming] and a high-minded, but unconvincing account of what the government was doing about it," wrote Richard Littlemore in a commentary posted in mid-July at DeSmogBlog.com.
"Never mind removing a reference to Kyoto; the words 'climate change' have been expunged from everything except the website title," maintained Littlemore, a journalist, speechwriter and senior counselor at James Hoggan & Associates, a Canadian public relations firm.
"The government's strategy of pretending to be concerned about the environment while both dismantling programs to address climate change and scrubbing government websites clean of any information proving that global warming exists has Frank Luntz written all over it," added Liberal Party MP Mark Holland.
Luntz, who met with Harper and his conservative colleagues earlier this year, is a high-profile political pollster and strategist, who has helped shape the U.S. Republican Party's political agenda and messaging for more than a decade. The New Yorker magazine's Hendrik Hertzberg recently described Luntz as the "Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as 'death tax' for estate tax and 'personal accounts' for Social Security privatization."
One section of an infamous 2002 Luntz-authored memorandum, instructing Republican congressional candidates, was titled "Winning the Global Warming Debate: An Overview." Luntz advised candidates to "continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
He maintained that "The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science... The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
Ironically, while the Bush administration, and the Harper government, may still be sticking with this script, Luntz appears to have changed his mind on global warming. In a recent documentary first aired on the BBC, Luntz said that he "think[s] most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate."
When asked about the advice about climate change that he had been giving for years, Luntz said it was fair when he gave it. He added that if the Bush administration is still questioning the science, "That's up to the [them]. I'm not the administration. What they want to do is their business. And it's nothing to do with what I write. And it's nothing to do with what I believe."
The Liberal Party's press release also pointed to Harper's "close friendship" with former EnCana President and CEO Gwyn Morgan, "a leading climate change skeptic in Alberta, who Harper tried unsuccessfully to appoint to a position overseeing government patronage appointments."
"This is all about controlling information and not about controlling greenhouse gases," said Godfrey. "The government would be thrilled if the Canadian public simply forgot about global warming, and we're simply not going to allow that to happen."
Meanwhile, the Harper government has pledged to produce a comprehensive environmental initiative in October that will supposedly include programs dealing with curbing greenhouse emissions blamed for global warming. Still in its formative stages, government officials maintain that they have been seeking a broad range of views on the issue, but according to a recent report by the Chronicle Herald, "many environmental groups say they've been shut out."
"The reality is that the public has not been consulted at all," said Ann Coxworth of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, one of the groups in the Climate Action Network, a coalition of environmental groups that has organized public forums and workshops in a number of Canadian cities.
Shortly after taking office, Harper put the kybosh on the Liberals' Project Green. The creation of the new environmental initiative appears to follow in the footsteps established by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney when he set about developing the Bush administration's energy plan. The Cheney Energy Task Force worked in secret and saw the Bush administration lean heavily on advice from utility companies, and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Harper project has thus far pretty much excluded environmental groups, and has been working "under tight secrecy," The Chronicle Herald reported.
"They're not giving us enough of what they intend to do for us to give them any significant advice on how to proceed," said John Bennett, executive director of the Climate Action Network. "We need to have a plan that all Canadians can work together on and you don't get a plan like that by going into a back room and then making an announcement six months later."
Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange.com column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right.
Other Recent Articles by Bill Berkowitz
* Christian Right Steps Up Pro-Israel Lobbying
* Meet the Fiery Karl Zinsmeister
* Nativists Declare Open Season on Undocumented Immigrants
* Pastor John Hagee Spearheads Christians United for Israel
* War on Christians?
* Michael Joyce (1942-2006)
* John Ashcroft Spreads His Wings
* Foaming Campus Cleanser Sputters at Temple
* The House That Jack Abramoff Built Begins to Crumble
* The Tumultuous and Tawdry Travels of Neil Bush
* The Mogul, the Movie and the Man on a Mission
* Crony in the Bird Flu Seat
* “Villains Honoring Villains”
* Christmas Under Attack: A Manufactured Crisis
* Rev. Pat Robertson: Dead End or No End in Sight?
* Bishops and Pawns
* Wal-Marting Philanthropy
* Sex and the Single Nominee
* Ohio Players
* The Christian Right's Piece of the “Promised Land”
* Bush Adopts Chunk of Heritage Foundation's Agenda to Rebuild Gulf Coast
* Team Bush's African American Conundrum
* David Horowitz Tackles Immigration
* The Politics of Slander
* Minutemen to Spread Wings
* Selling Brand Kurdistan
* Still Colson After All These Years
* Deepening the Faith: Bush and Congress Aim to Institutionalize Faith-Based Initiative
* William Greene's Angry and Mobile Rapid Response Machine
* Tony Perkins' Family Research Council
* “Heathens” Not Welcome at Air Force Academy
* Paying to Play (Part I)
* Tom Delay's Right Arm
* Amway: “Masters of Deception”
* Deathbed Dollars
* Crusader Nation
* Pope Benedict XVI's Questionable Qualifications
* Rehearsals for the Rapture
* The Schiavo Case's Intended and Unintended Consequences
* Lurching Toward Theocracy
* Team Schiavo's Deep Pockets
* Super-Sized Food Industry Targets Families
* Whitman's Crusade Could be Running on Empty
* The Secret Wars of Judi Bari is Mean-Spirited and Loose with the Facts
* Christian Right Mum on Gannon Affair
* Wade Horn: The Marrying Man
* Hunting Hillary Clinton
* Faith, Fabrications, and Fantasy (Part 2)
* Faith, Fabrications, and Fantasy (Part 1)
* Spy Cams on Campus
* Spellings Slashes, Dobson Stews
* To Hell, and They're Coming Back
* Overdosed
* Claude Allen in The House
* SpongeBob GayPants?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Beyond Chutzpah: Israel Hints at Canadian Military Aid Request
PEJ News - C. L. Cook - The Canwest News "Service" is reporting today, Israel's ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker "floated" the idea of Canadian naval vessels "patrolling" the now oil soaked coastal Mediterranean stretch between Lebanon and Syria. Baker's trial balloon, delivered to the press in Ottawa today, is just one facet of Israel's endgame in its "war" against Hezbollah, the attempt to draw international forces to clean up the mess they initiated in battered Lebanon.
www.PEJ.org
www.PEJ.org
Beyond Chutzpah: Israel Hints at Canadian Military Aid Request
C. L. Cook
PEJ News
August 16, 2006
It must seem a perfectly reasonable expectation, from the Israeli government's point of view; isn't that how things work in post-modern warfare? It worked in Yugoslavia, where "NATO" pulverized the population and civil infrastructure, then leaving the remnant Former Republic of Yugoslavia to be garrisoned by someone else, it's crippled economy gifted to off-shore corporate interests. It's what's happened in Afghanistan, and Iraq. So, why not Lebanon?
Canwest makes no mention in today's piece of Canadian civilians slaughtered by the Israeli Defence Force. Not a discouraging word is heard in Kelly Patrick's screed of the unarmed four U.N. peacekeepers deliberately murdered, one of them Canadian. But then, why should Patrick go out further on a limb than the Canadian government, by reminding Canwest's diminishing readership of unpleasant truth's concerning cap-in-hand Israel's authorship of the unfolding disaster over there? For their part, the government of Stephen Harper is staying mum, the pm's director of communications, Sandra Buckler coyly saying, "I don't wish to speculate on calls that have yet to take place."
Under Security Council Resolution SCR 1701, the UN calls for a 15,000 member bolstering of the current United Nations' Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the same Israel recently targeted, to work in conjunction with the Lebanese Army to ensure Hezbollah does not threaten northern Israel. The UN also proposes the international force disarm Hezbollah and ensure no weapons come into the country. No demands of Israel are apparent, save they train their fire solely on the residents of Prison Camp Palestine, sparing the Lebanese the treatment so familiar there.
Ambassador Baker acknowledges, Canada is "pretty heavily engaged in Afghanistan," but says he still believes "Canada can do more now."
And, I suppose he's right. Now that Iraq is destroyed, and the murderous sanctions regime officially ended, those Canadian naval vessels that worked so diligently to enforce the starvation of the Iraq people can now be resourced to do similar duty in the Med. That is if they can muster the bodies.
According to Canada's military strong man and chief of defence staff, General Rick Hillier, "Whether we have the capability to contribute there would be entirely dependent on the kind of mission, the kind of mandate, and the kind of job that a force would have to do." I guess it "kind of" depends too on whether the Canadian people are prepared to foot the bill for yet another foreign occupation, and whether the Canadian Forces have the boots at command to handle three simultaneous occupations.
Hillier appears on another page, opposite the graveside photo of Corporal Sarah Keller. Keller's husband Bryce is, to use the pm's phraseology when referring to dead Canadians, "one of about 30 killed" so far in Afghanistan. No doubt dying "doing the job he loved." On this page, Hillier opines it will take "years and years" to rebuild that battered nation. These are years on top of the five years Canadian taxpayers have ponied up to piece together the remains of America's bloody bombing campaign and occupation there. How to do that with Canada's tiny military? Not to worry, Rick's boss Stephen "just call me Steve, Dubya" has the answer.
The Conservatives [sic] say they want to see thirteen thousand more boots filled to be shipped overseas. But, recruitment and retention is apparently a problem for the Forces here. The press coverage of one sombre ceremony after another probably isn't helping (one reason perhaps Sandra Buckler advised "Steve" not allow coverage of such dreary events). But Hillier is optimistic about new recruitment directives saying, "We've thrown, if you will, a transformational grenade in the middle of our recruiting process." Sounds great, Rick. Do go on!
Meanwhile in Sherwood Park, Alberta, widowed Corporal Sarah Keller is comforted by her family and friends, commiserating the loss of her husband, one of seven Canadian killed in Afghanistan in August alone. But, perhaps not only seven dead; another attack in Afghanistan wounded six more Canadian soldiers yesterday. There the Canadian "forward operating base," where Canadians have been mounting their search and destroy missions across Panjwaii district, came under mortar fire. And if Canwest is to be believed, there is more to come, as "Taliban" fighters are massing.
Expect this week to hear the official Israeli request for Canadian "aid." And expect too to hear your pm Harper accept the challenge to "keep Canada free, etc." But, this mission won't be free; it will cost Canadian prestige, Canadian tax dollars, and perhaps, as we've seen in Afghanistan and Haiti, Canadian blood as well.
Chris Cook is a contributing editor to PEJ News and hosts Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program. You can check out the GR Blog here.
C. L. Cook
PEJ News
August 16, 2006
It must seem a perfectly reasonable expectation, from the Israeli government's point of view; isn't that how things work in post-modern warfare? It worked in Yugoslavia, where "NATO" pulverized the population and civil infrastructure, then leaving the remnant Former Republic of Yugoslavia to be garrisoned by someone else, it's crippled economy gifted to off-shore corporate interests. It's what's happened in Afghanistan, and Iraq. So, why not Lebanon?
Canwest makes no mention in today's piece of Canadian civilians slaughtered by the Israeli Defence Force. Not a discouraging word is heard in Kelly Patrick's screed of the unarmed four U.N. peacekeepers deliberately murdered, one of them Canadian. But then, why should Patrick go out further on a limb than the Canadian government, by reminding Canwest's diminishing readership of unpleasant truth's concerning cap-in-hand Israel's authorship of the unfolding disaster over there? For their part, the government of Stephen Harper is staying mum, the pm's director of communications, Sandra Buckler coyly saying, "I don't wish to speculate on calls that have yet to take place."
Under Security Council Resolution SCR 1701, the UN calls for a 15,000 member bolstering of the current United Nations' Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the same Israel recently targeted, to work in conjunction with the Lebanese Army to ensure Hezbollah does not threaten northern Israel. The UN also proposes the international force disarm Hezbollah and ensure no weapons come into the country. No demands of Israel are apparent, save they train their fire solely on the residents of Prison Camp Palestine, sparing the Lebanese the treatment so familiar there.
Ambassador Baker acknowledges, Canada is "pretty heavily engaged in Afghanistan," but says he still believes "Canada can do more now."
And, I suppose he's right. Now that Iraq is destroyed, and the murderous sanctions regime officially ended, those Canadian naval vessels that worked so diligently to enforce the starvation of the Iraq people can now be resourced to do similar duty in the Med. That is if they can muster the bodies.
According to Canada's military strong man and chief of defence staff, General Rick Hillier, "Whether we have the capability to contribute there would be entirely dependent on the kind of mission, the kind of mandate, and the kind of job that a force would have to do." I guess it "kind of" depends too on whether the Canadian people are prepared to foot the bill for yet another foreign occupation, and whether the Canadian Forces have the boots at command to handle three simultaneous occupations.
Hillier appears on another page, opposite the graveside photo of Corporal Sarah Keller. Keller's husband Bryce is, to use the pm's phraseology when referring to dead Canadians, "one of about 30 killed" so far in Afghanistan. No doubt dying "doing the job he loved." On this page, Hillier opines it will take "years and years" to rebuild that battered nation. These are years on top of the five years Canadian taxpayers have ponied up to piece together the remains of America's bloody bombing campaign and occupation there. How to do that with Canada's tiny military? Not to worry, Rick's boss Stephen "just call me Steve, Dubya" has the answer.
The Conservatives [sic] say they want to see thirteen thousand more boots filled to be shipped overseas. But, recruitment and retention is apparently a problem for the Forces here. The press coverage of one sombre ceremony after another probably isn't helping (one reason perhaps Sandra Buckler advised "Steve" not allow coverage of such dreary events). But Hillier is optimistic about new recruitment directives saying, "We've thrown, if you will, a transformational grenade in the middle of our recruiting process." Sounds great, Rick. Do go on!
Meanwhile in Sherwood Park, Alberta, widowed Corporal Sarah Keller is comforted by her family and friends, commiserating the loss of her husband, one of seven Canadian killed in Afghanistan in August alone. But, perhaps not only seven dead; another attack in Afghanistan wounded six more Canadian soldiers yesterday. There the Canadian "forward operating base," where Canadians have been mounting their search and destroy missions across Panjwaii district, came under mortar fire. And if Canwest is to be believed, there is more to come, as "Taliban" fighters are massing.
Expect this week to hear the official Israeli request for Canadian "aid." And expect too to hear your pm Harper accept the challenge to "keep Canada free, etc." But, this mission won't be free; it will cost Canadian prestige, Canadian tax dollars, and perhaps, as we've seen in Afghanistan and Haiti, Canadian blood as well.
Chris Cook is a contributing editor to PEJ News and hosts Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program. You can check out the GR Blog here.
Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.
Lebanon's Pawns Back on the Board: IDF Threatens Move
IDF: We'll disarm Hizbullah if UN can't
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Hoffman, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IDF will have to resume operations in Lebanon if the expanded United Nations force being assembled does not fulfill its obligation to dismantle Hizbullah, an official in the Prime Minister's Office warned on Tuesday.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reached a deal allowing Hizbullah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public. Israeli officials called the arrangement a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which passed over the weekend and was approved on Sunday by the cabinet.
"The resolution is clear that Hizbullah needs to be removed from the border area, embargoed and dismantled," the official said. "If the resolution is not implemented, we will have to take action to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah. I don't think backtracking will serve any useful purpose. There has to be pressure on Hizbullah to disarm or there will have to be another round."
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is expected to raise the issue when she meets in New York on Wednesday with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Annan angered Israeli officials when he told Channel 2 on Tuesday that "dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN," which could only help Lebanon disarm the organization. Annan upset officials further when he said that deploying international forces in Lebanon would take "weeks or months," and not days as expected.
Israeli officials said the IDF would not complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon until the international force was deployed - even if it took months - to prevent a vacuum in Lebanon that could endanger Israeli civilians. An official in the Prime Minister's Office accused Annan of having an anti-Israel agenda.
"He has been one-sided," the official said. "He tried to be even-handed in a situation that was clearly asymmetrical. When one side committed crimes against humanity and engaged in genocide and the other side defended itself, he cannot treat us in the same manner."
Annan rejected charges of bias, saying, "I have been very hard on Hizbullah and condemned Hizbullah for what it has done. I have condemned Israel for what I consider excessive use of force but it doesn't mean I am taking one side."
Livni will also meet with US diplomatic officials and Jewish leaders during her 24-hour visit. The goals of the trip include advancing Israel's interests in talks on implementing the cease-fire in Lebanon, expediting the deployment of an international force and bringing about the return of the kidnapped IDF soldiers.
Annan is set to make key decisions about the role of the multinational force. Livni had planned to visit New York over the weekend but her original trip was blocked by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovich said implementation of the cease-fire was "good so far" and "going according to plan." He said Livni wanted to make sure that UNIFIL's effectiveness would be maximized.
According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, the two main tasks of the expanded force would be enforcing a "Hizbullah-free zone" in south Lebanon and an international arms embargo on Hizbullah. He said the resolution detailed the placement of international forces at all crossing points into Lebanon, comprising those from Syria as well as airports and seaports.
"The resolution meets Israel's expectations," Regev said. "The focus now is on ensuring its full and complete implementation. Unfortunately, there have been too many UN resolutions on Lebanon that have gathered dust in the archives and have not changed anything. The challenge now is to bring about the expeditious implementation of 1701."
Under the UN resolution, 15,000 Lebanese troops, with the help of an expanded UNIFIL, would take over the area between the Litani River, 30 kilometers north of Israel, and the frontier to create a buffer zone free of Hizbullah gunmen.
"She will discuss [with Annan] the importance of having the international forces in Lebanon as expeditiously as possible," Regev said of Livni.
Israel wants a speedy deployment "firstly to allow the Israeli troops to pull out of south Lebanon and to ensure the creation of the Hizbullah-free zone in the south... and secondly to make sure that the international arms embargo on Hizbullah is implemented," he said.
"We have to have the resolution translated into reality," Regev said.
Forty-five countries have attended technical sessions for potential contributors to a beefed-up UNIFIL, and the United Nations is hopeful that the first announcements of new troop commitments will be made at a formal meeting expected to take place on Thursday, UN officials said.
France and the United States have sent military planners to meet with UN peacekeeping planners to determine how countries could participate in the proposed 15,000-strong UN force, said a UN official familiar with the process.
The doctrine of operations for the force is reportedly in draft form and will be shared with the potential troop contributors at Thursday's meeting, the UN official said.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that 28 countries had attended a technical meeting on Saturday and 17 countries had attended a similar meeting on Monday.
"We hope to have a more formal meeting with troop contributors on Thursday," he said.
The UN has not received any formal offers of troops for UNIFIL, although France, Italy, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia have indicated they would make significant contributions. A dozen other countries have also expressed a willingness to help.
"We would like to get firm commitments of troops as soon as possible," Dujarric said.
France is expected to lead the expanded force, which currently has 2,000 troops and is commanded by French Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini. But UN officials and diplomats said France had not made any announcement of how many troops it planned to send, and that this was holding up announcements of troop commitments from other countries.
"It's a chicken and egg situation, as it often is in our efforts to generate a force," Dujarric said. "We're dependent on the member states to come up with firm offers... We're in intensive discussions with them, and hopefully we'll flush out and get some firm commitments."
US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are also making calls to drum up troops for the expanded UN force, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said.
A French colonel started working with UN military planners on Tuesday, and Bolton said the Pentagon was also sending a military planner. A French general is expected at UN headquarters on Wednesday to work as a liaison between the UN Peace-keeping Department and Paris, UN diplomats said.
AP contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525882124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Hoffman, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IDF will have to resume operations in Lebanon if the expanded United Nations force being assembled does not fulfill its obligation to dismantle Hizbullah, an official in the Prime Minister's Office warned on Tuesday.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reached a deal allowing Hizbullah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public. Israeli officials called the arrangement a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which passed over the weekend and was approved on Sunday by the cabinet.
"The resolution is clear that Hizbullah needs to be removed from the border area, embargoed and dismantled," the official said. "If the resolution is not implemented, we will have to take action to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah. I don't think backtracking will serve any useful purpose. There has to be pressure on Hizbullah to disarm or there will have to be another round."
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is expected to raise the issue when she meets in New York on Wednesday with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Annan angered Israeli officials when he told Channel 2 on Tuesday that "dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN," which could only help Lebanon disarm the organization. Annan upset officials further when he said that deploying international forces in Lebanon would take "weeks or months," and not days as expected.
Israeli officials said the IDF would not complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon until the international force was deployed - even if it took months - to prevent a vacuum in Lebanon that could endanger Israeli civilians. An official in the Prime Minister's Office accused Annan of having an anti-Israel agenda.
"He has been one-sided," the official said. "He tried to be even-handed in a situation that was clearly asymmetrical. When one side committed crimes against humanity and engaged in genocide and the other side defended itself, he cannot treat us in the same manner."
Annan rejected charges of bias, saying, "I have been very hard on Hizbullah and condemned Hizbullah for what it has done. I have condemned Israel for what I consider excessive use of force but it doesn't mean I am taking one side."
Livni will also meet with US diplomatic officials and Jewish leaders during her 24-hour visit. The goals of the trip include advancing Israel's interests in talks on implementing the cease-fire in Lebanon, expediting the deployment of an international force and bringing about the return of the kidnapped IDF soldiers.
Annan is set to make key decisions about the role of the multinational force. Livni had planned to visit New York over the weekend but her original trip was blocked by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovich said implementation of the cease-fire was "good so far" and "going according to plan." He said Livni wanted to make sure that UNIFIL's effectiveness would be maximized.
According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, the two main tasks of the expanded force would be enforcing a "Hizbullah-free zone" in south Lebanon and an international arms embargo on Hizbullah. He said the resolution detailed the placement of international forces at all crossing points into Lebanon, comprising those from Syria as well as airports and seaports.
"The resolution meets Israel's expectations," Regev said. "The focus now is on ensuring its full and complete implementation. Unfortunately, there have been too many UN resolutions on Lebanon that have gathered dust in the archives and have not changed anything. The challenge now is to bring about the expeditious implementation of 1701."
Under the UN resolution, 15,000 Lebanese troops, with the help of an expanded UNIFIL, would take over the area between the Litani River, 30 kilometers north of Israel, and the frontier to create a buffer zone free of Hizbullah gunmen.
"She will discuss [with Annan] the importance of having the international forces in Lebanon as expeditiously as possible," Regev said of Livni.
Israel wants a speedy deployment "firstly to allow the Israeli troops to pull out of south Lebanon and to ensure the creation of the Hizbullah-free zone in the south... and secondly to make sure that the international arms embargo on Hizbullah is implemented," he said.
"We have to have the resolution translated into reality," Regev said.
Forty-five countries have attended technical sessions for potential contributors to a beefed-up UNIFIL, and the United Nations is hopeful that the first announcements of new troop commitments will be made at a formal meeting expected to take place on Thursday, UN officials said.
France and the United States have sent military planners to meet with UN peacekeeping planners to determine how countries could participate in the proposed 15,000-strong UN force, said a UN official familiar with the process.
The doctrine of operations for the force is reportedly in draft form and will be shared with the potential troop contributors at Thursday's meeting, the UN official said.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that 28 countries had attended a technical meeting on Saturday and 17 countries had attended a similar meeting on Monday.
"We hope to have a more formal meeting with troop contributors on Thursday," he said.
The UN has not received any formal offers of troops for UNIFIL, although France, Italy, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia have indicated they would make significant contributions. A dozen other countries have also expressed a willingness to help.
"We would like to get firm commitments of troops as soon as possible," Dujarric said.
France is expected to lead the expanded force, which currently has 2,000 troops and is commanded by French Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini. But UN officials and diplomats said France had not made any announcement of how many troops it planned to send, and that this was holding up announcements of troop commitments from other countries.
"It's a chicken and egg situation, as it often is in our efforts to generate a force," Dujarric said. "We're dependent on the member states to come up with firm offers... We're in intensive discussions with them, and hopefully we'll flush out and get some firm commitments."
US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are also making calls to drum up troops for the expanded UN force, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said.
A French colonel started working with UN military planners on Tuesday, and Bolton said the Pentagon was also sending a military planner. A French general is expected at UN headquarters on Wednesday to work as a liaison between the UN Peace-keeping Department and Paris, UN diplomats said.
AP contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525882124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Lebanon's Pawns Back on the Board: IDF Threatens Move
IDF: We'll disarm Hizbullah if UN can't
The IDF will have to resume operations in Lebanon if the expanded United Nations force being assembled does not fulfill its obligation to dismantle Hizbullah, an official in the Prime Minister's Office warned on Tuesday.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reached a deal allowing Hizbullah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public. Israeli officials called the arrangement a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which passed over the weekend and was approved on Sunday by the cabinet.
"The resolution is clear that Hizbullah needs to be removed from the border area, embargoed and dismantled," the official said. "If the resolution is not implemented, we will have to take action to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah. I don't think backtracking will serve any useful purpose. There has to be pressure on Hizbullah to disarm or there will have to be another round."
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is expected to raise the issue when she meets in New York on Wednesday with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Annan angered Israeli officials when he told Channel 2 on Tuesday that "dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN," which could only help Lebanon disarm the organization. Annan upset officials further when he said that deploying international forces in Lebanon would take "weeks or months," and not days as expected.
Israeli officials said the IDF would not complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon until the international force was deployed - even if it took months - to prevent a vacuum in Lebanon that could endanger Israeli civilians. An official in the Prime Minister's Office accused Annan of having an anti-Israel agenda.
"He has been one-sided," the official said. "He tried to be even-handed in a situation that was clearly asymmetrical. When one side committed crimes against humanity and engaged in genocide and the other side defended itself, he cannot treat us in the same manner."
Annan rejected charges of bias, saying, "I have been very hard on Hizbullah and condemned Hizbullah for what it has done. I have condemned Israel for what I consider excessive use of force but it doesn't mean I am taking one side."
Livni will also meet with US diplomatic officials and Jewish leaders during her 24-hour visit. The goals of the trip include advancing Israel's interests in talks on implementing the cease-fire in Lebanon, expediting the deployment of an international force and bringing about the return of the kidnapped IDF soldiers.
Annan is set to make key decisions about the role of the multinational force. Livni had planned to visit New York over the weekend but her original trip was blocked by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovich said implementation of the cease-fire was "good so far" and "going according to plan." He said Livni wanted to make sure that UNIFIL's effectiveness would be maximized.
According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, the two main tasks of the expanded force would be enforcing a "Hizbullah-free zone" in south Lebanon and an international arms embargo on Hizbullah. He said the resolution detailed the placement of international forces at all crossing points into Lebanon, comprising those from Syria as well as airports and seaports.
"The resolution meets Israel's expectations," Regev said. "The focus now is on ensuring its full and complete implementation. Unfortunately, there have been too many UN resolutions on Lebanon that have gathered dust in the archives and have not changed anything. The challenge now is to bring about the expeditious implementation of 1701."
Under the UN resolution, 15,000 Lebanese troops, with the help of an expanded UNIFIL, would take over the area between the Litani River, 30 kilometers north of Israel, and the frontier to create a buffer zone free of Hizbullah gunmen.
"She will discuss [with Annan] the importance of having the international forces in Lebanon as expeditiously as possible," Regev said of Livni.
Israel wants a speedy deployment "firstly to allow the Israeli troops to pull out of south Lebanon and to ensure the creation of the Hizbullah-free zone in the south... and secondly to make sure that the international arms embargo on Hizbullah is implemented," he said.
"We have to have the resolution translated into reality," Regev said.
Forty-five countries have attended technical sessions for potential contributors to a beefed-up UNIFIL, and the United Nations is hopeful that the first announcements of new troop commitments will be made at a formal meeting expected to take place on Thursday, UN officials said.
France and the United States have sent military planners to meet with UN peacekeeping planners to determine how countries could participate in the proposed 15,000-strong UN force, said a UN official familiar with the process.
The doctrine of operations for the force is reportedly in draft form and will be shared with the potential troop contributors at Thursday's meeting, the UN official said.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that 28 countries had attended a technical meeting on Saturday and 17 countries had attended a similar meeting on Monday.
"We hope to have a more formal meeting with troop contributors on Thursday," he said.
The UN has not received any formal offers of troops for UNIFIL, although France, Italy, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia have indicated they would make significant contributions. A dozen other countries have also expressed a willingness to help.
"We would like to get firm commitments of troops as soon as possible," Dujarric said.
France is expected to lead the expanded force, which currently has 2,000 troops and is commanded by French Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini. But UN officials and diplomats said France had not made any announcement of how many troops it planned to send, and that this was holding up announcements of troop commitments from other countries.
"It's a chicken and egg situation, as it often is in our efforts to generate a force," Dujarric said. "We're dependent on the member states to come up with firm offers... We're in intensive discussions with them, and hopefully we'll flush out and get some firm commitments."
US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are also making calls to drum up troops for the expanded UN force, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said.
A French colonel started working with UN military planners on Tuesday, and Bolton said the Pentagon was also sending a military planner. A French general is expected at UN headquarters on Wednesday to work as a liaison between the UN Peace-keeping Department and Paris, UN diplomats said.
AP contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525882124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Sunday, August 13, 2006
"You Did It Too" - Israel's Kosovo Redux
PEJ News - C. L. Cook - So it's come back? Israel sniped this past week at the growing chorus coming out of civilized Europe against their murder spree in Lebanon, and continued practice of routine atrocity in Gaza and the West Bank, with a tart retort to the Germany's, France's, and lesser's, of their own complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo not so many years ago. The implication is simple enough to see, as is its logical presumption: "My evil is no greater than yours."
Well, then: Bombs away!
www.PEJ.org
Well, then: Bombs away!
www.PEJ.org
"You Did It Too"
Israel's Kosovo Redux
C. L. Cook
PEJ News
August 12, 2006
How fitting Israel should retaliate European criticism of its murderous rampage, currently burning nicely, with its most lethal, but rarely used, diplomatic Weapon of Sass Destruction: The Truth.
Europeans, at least those that rule over the major, and aspiring nations of Europe, are complicit in the abortion of justice and abrogation of the duty to Humanity during what was the NATO scourge of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. Fitting for the lessons learnt, and practiced with precedent-following impunity in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewheres.
Apt, when considering the use of cluster bombs, and depleted uranium munitions, drones, and satellites, missiles, and smart bombs, and on, and on, combined as it is with the systematic brutalisation of prisoners, and the deliberate targeting of essential civic services; services like: Water, and sewage; power, and communications; transit routes, and hospitals; houses, schools, fire and police stations; ambulances, fire trucks, and now "any vehicle" piloted by one so desperate to risk flight 'neath the IDF terror being wreaked about her, and her children's ears.
Yes, it sounds a lot like the "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo.
Appropriate too, remembering the involvement of Osama, and his crew, in complicity with their then-C.I.A. paymasters, and the similar brand of carnage loosed largely against the citizenry. All done then, Israel implies now, with the official imprimatur of both NATO, and the UN.
Just so!
Amazingly, Israel - and, I beg pardon of those Arab and "fringe" Israeli's opposing the fanatical fascism currently made most starkly visible, hath spake two truths in a single day! But, the amazing parallels well exceed that, when looking a little more deeply into the goings-on, both today, and in those benighted days in the Balkans.
In those dark times, an entire people, identify racially, were driven from the land they'd lived upon for millennia; driven wholesale from their purchase. These same were strewn, the survivors of the onslaught, to the winds; scattered to find some new landing, the only certainty being they could not now, nor perhaps ever, go home.
They speaking for the so-called Israeli nation have put on notice all that would dare oppose naked, military conquest, and their neighbours too targeted should they interfere. In Lebanon, Robert Fisk reports today, leaflets falling the heavens, each one an identical indictment of international criminality; each an admission of the abandonment of the Geneva Conventions, the rules that have ostensibly guided the world in this unprecedented time.
Israel's blood-stained ministers are correct in their condemnation of NATO, its members, and the public that allowed the destruction of a nation, all conducted in the name of justice, and based on lies and blatant, criminal deception. They are correct too in wondering: "Why complain of we when doing your dirty business?"
And, that is the heart of it.
The dichotomy is an illusion: "Israel" and "America" are a single entity. This is no news to those living beneath the boot of the rising tide of oppression in those far-flung places. It seems only in the United States, where the results of a recent poll - if you believe in such things - claimed: More than half of "Americans" asked didn't know which year the rather well publicized 9/11 attacks occurred. This of course played in conjunction with the ceaseless 24/7 "news" cycle reportage of the next, newest "terrorist plot;" a convenient distraction from military reversals in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the continuing hammering of the populace in Occupied Palestine.
What differs, during the most recent outrages against humaneness is the Israeli State's official, literal declaration of war against a civil population has not been seen since the Nazi occupation of Greece. Collective Punishment of civilians is clearly indicated upon the thousands of leaflets dropped before the bombs in Lebanon; as the most knowing English-language reporter from the scene, Robert Fisk reports.
These are clearly open declarations, on the part of the current Israeli leadership, of defiance to any and all conventions yet constructed in hopes of making of this world a more equitable place. And, the lack of effective reaction to these obvious transgressions on the part of the "world" community are a Damnation of collusion in ethnic cleansing; a cleansing some are already calling "Holocaust."
Chris Cook is a contributing editor to PEJ News, and host of Gorilla Radio, a weekly exploration of the muck and mire comprising what is today, laughingly referred to as civilization. You can check the GR Blog here.
Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)